The EU

Google says the EU requires a notice of cookie use (by Google) and says they have posted a notice. I don't see it. If cookies bother you, go elsewhere. If the EU bothers you, emigrate. If you live outside the EU, don't go there.
Showing posts with label Abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Abortion. Show all posts

Thursday, January 26, 2023

Leaks at the Supreme Court


For John, BLUFAs the US Supreme Court was reviewing its nearly 50 year old Roe v Wade (Abortion) decision someone leaked the draft decision, apparently with the intent of influencing that decision.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




From The Epoch Times, by Reporter Samantha Flom, 23 January 2023.

Here is the lede plus five:

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley criticized the Supreme Court on Jan. 19 over its failure to determine who leaked a draft of the court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization opinion.

After a months-long investigation sparked by the May leak, the court released its much-anticipated investigative report (pdf) on the matter Thursday, finding that it was “not possible” to identify the person responsible for the breach or how the document had ended up in the hands of Politico.

“The Supreme Court’s report indicates that they cannot isolate the culprit among the over 80 possible suspects for the Dobbs leak,” Turley noted in a series of Jan. 19 tweets. “It is an admission that is almost as chilling as the leak itself.”

Turley also posited that, despite the security recommendations of the court’s marshal, the inconclusive investigation would likely only serve to embolden future leakers.

“The nature of the Court’s work requires a free flow of drafts and memoranda,” he noted. “That is why we hope to achieve through deterrence what was not achieved through ethics.

“In this age of rage, this danger will only grow,” he added. “Someone felt that they had license to leak. Some others may now feel that they have the impunity to do so.”

The term "age of rage" sums up our current situation.  Take, for example, the City of Atlanta over this past weekend. where people from outside the city converged on it to protest the police building a training center.  One would think that better training would lead to better, more just, policing.  Apparently that is not an obvious conclusion to all.

As for the US Supreme Court lead, one wondeers if the search is worth the ensuing turmoil.  Heaven forbid it were one of the Justices.  Would there ever be comity again?  A law clerk?  In the future could they be trusted to carry a piece of paper from one office to another?  Better to consider it an aberation and move on.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Friday, January 6, 2023

Biden Skips the Funeral


For John, BLUFThis Morning you asked about President Biden not attending Pope Benedict's funeral.  This is the best explanation I can find.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




From Howie Carr Radio Network, by Digital Managing Editor Emma Foley, 6 January 2023.

Here is the lede plus one:

They say high school never ends. You can be long gone, and the invite list to your funeral will still stir up drama.

President Biden was not invited to Pope Benedict XVI’s funeral yesterday. Though unconfirmed, it can be easily deduced America’s second-ever baptized Catholic President was barred from attending.

The Vatican kept its explanation for his no-show vague:  “simplicity.”  Any photo from St. Peter’s Square this morning debunks the event was anything but “simple”—with estimates of 50,000 in attendance—and for good reason.

Maybe the Vatican was using “simple” rather than the more blunt word: “straightforward.”  As in, we’re telling the abortion-promoting, religious-freedom-inhibiting, self-proclaimed “devout Catholic” to stay far away.

And there you are.  President Biden is more like a Progressive than like a Roomsn Catholic.  He is willing to shave his Catholic beliefs in order to fit in with his Progressive friends. 

For example, in the wake oof the US Supreme Court Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health decision, reversing Roe v Wade, President Joe Biden signed an executive order aimed at protecting access to avortion.  From CNN we hve this report:

The executive order attempts to safeguard access to medication abortion and emergency contraception, protect patient privacy, launch public education efforts as well as bolster the security of and the legal options available to those seeking and providing abortion services.

“President Biden has made clear that the only way to secure a woman’s right to choose is for Congress to restore the protections of Roe as federal law. Until then, he has committed to doing everything in his power to defend reproductive rights and protect access to safe and legal abortion,” the White House said in a statement on Friday.

There is no action the President can take to restore the nationwide right to an abortion in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling. Biden has acknowledged publicly his options to expand abortion access remain limited, and has called on the American people to elect more members of Congress in November’s midterm elections who will support federal legislation protecting abortion access.

The actions of President Biden suggest not a person who sees abortion as morally wrong, althoough favoored by many in this nation, but as a full fledged right, to be provided everywhere, regardless of local concerns.

President Biden is not executing his duties as though he had [a Catholic] informed conscience, aware of the humanity of a fetus.  I am not shocked that he was not invited to the Requim Mass for the late Pope Benedict.

Regards  —  Cliff

Sunday, December 4, 2022

Ms Clinton equates Pro-Life with Terrorism


For John, BLUFI think Senator Clinton just got carried away with her rhetoric; at least I hope that is the case.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




From , by Reporter Catherine Salgado, 27 December 2022, 4:06 PM.

Here is the lede plus one:

Iranian protests against oppressive, misogynistic laws have led to over 14,000 arrests and a government decision to execute an unknown number of protestors.  Afghanistan’s ruling power, the terrorist Taliban, murders, rapes, and abuses women on a daily basis.  Russian soldiers reportedly weaponized rape in Ukraine.  All of which, in Hillary Clinton’s mind, is equivalent to Arkansas’s pro-life legislation restricting the abortion of innocent unborn babies.

Most of us did a double take on that, but not PBS’s Christiane Amanpour.  When failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton went on Amanpour and Company to discuss the women’s rights summit the Clinton Presidential Center is hosting, Amanpour didn’t seem disturbed by Hillary equating the saving of unborn babies with raping and shooting women, according to LifeNews.

Amanpour asked Clinton about the “unfinished business” of women’s rights, and Hillary knew exactly which countries to bash.  “But we are also in a period of time where there is a lot of pushback and much of the progress that has been, I think, taken for granted by too many people is under attack,” Clinton pontificated. “Literally under attack in places like Iran or Afghanistan or Ukraine, where rape is a tactic of war, or under attacks by political and cultural forces in a country like our own when it comes to women’s health care and bodily autonomy.”  Because pro-lifers are so similar to the Taliban!

We don't really think that Senator Clinton equates Pro-Life people with Terrorists, do we?  That would be equating criminal activity with the right of the State to protect, at some point, the life of an unborn child for the convenience of the Mother carrying the child.  That seems like an unbalanced argument.

In our pluralistic society it does not seem unreasonable to allow abortion to save the life of the Mother, or, early on, in the event of rape.  Incest as a separate category ignores that it is usully rape, and when it is consenual the idea of abortion sounds more like eugenics.  At some point the child conceived should begin to gather his or her own rights.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Thursday, September 29, 2022

The Location


For John, BLUFAn anti-Abortion activist was arrested by a couple dozen FBI agents in front of his family for shoving a man who had talked crudely to his then 12 year old son.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




From The Blaze, by Reporter Psul Sacca, 24 September 2022.

Here is the lede plus three:

A pro-life activist and author had his home raided by as many as 30 FBI agents with guns drawn, according to his wife. The sidewalk counselor and father of seven now faces up to 11 years in federal prison for allegedly pushing a man to the ground outside of an abortion clinic in Pennsylvania nearly a year ago. The pro-abortion man allegedly harassed the Christian man's young son.

Mark Houck is a Catholic author, lecturer, radio host, and co-founder of The King's Men – a club for men "to unite and build up other men in the mold of leader, protector, and provider through education, formation, healing, and action."

On Oct. 13, 2021, Houck allegedly went to sidewalk counsel at the Planned Parenthood Elizabeth Blackwell Health Center in Philadelphia. He brought his eldest son with him – who was 12 years old at the time.

An abortion clinic volunteer named Bruce Love and Houck allegedly got into an altercation outside of the Planned Parenthood clinic. Houck's wife claimed that her husband was on the sidewalk of the abortion clinic and not the property of Planned Parenthood.

I can understand the FBI going in with mass and guns drawn.  I understand both Mr Mark Houck, and his Wife, Ryan-Marie, are trained Ninjas, with a complete arsenal of weapoons.  My understanding is that he even has a technical in his garage, with a Ma Duece mounted on the bed.  Once can understand the concern of the FBI.

What I don't understand is how the FBI thought it was OK to clog all the local residential street parking with their operation.  Was there no more congeniel setting for arresting Mr Houck?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Saturday, September 24, 2022

Is Abortion an Absolute Right?


For John, BLUFAuthor carla Seaquist doesn't seem to thinkk abortion is an absolute right and she counsels going forward with an eye toward other rights.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




From Medium, by Writer Carla Seaquist, 31 May 2022.

Here is the lede plus three:

Abortion is every woman’s concern and every feminist’s issue.  We feminists, the advocates of the species, array ourselves along a spectrum on the issue of abortion — over viability of the fetus, over religious injunction, over access to the procedure, over restrictions to access.  It is perhaps the latter — unrestricted versus restricted access — that causes the most argument among our number.

A defining moment for me came in the mid-1990s.  I was in New York on business and was to meet a friend there for coffee during my break (from rehearsal for a play of mine).  When I called to arrange where to meet, my friend informed me of a scheduling conflict:  As a board member of an abortion rights group, she had committed to a march that would take place during our coffee-time.  I’d read of the upcoming march, a major event involving feminists from across the country. “You can come march with us and we can talk,” she said.  I demurred:  “I don’t think so, but thanks.”  What ensued got prickly, as it came out her advocacy of abortion was stronger than mine.

Finally, in exasperation, my friend asked:  “What kind of feminist are you?”  And out of my mouth came my position on abortion, finally:  “One who believes in limits, in restrictions.”

By then, in the 20-some years since the 1973 Supreme Court’s historic ruling in Roe v. Wade granting the right to abortion, when the ruling was operationalized — women getting abortions, feminists touting women’s progress with this signal right — I became increasingly unsettled by how seldom I heard reference to, or concern expressed for, that which was aborted: the fetus.  Too often I heard relief expressed that abortion was a fix for a “wild weekend of unprotected sex.”  Also unsettling was what I took to be specious rationales about when life begins, with the more extremist voices arguing for later and later in the term, with fewer and fewer restrictions, including into the third trimester.  But, but, but:  Left to its own, the fetus will grow, I felt; it is a living thing.  “Safe, legal, and rare” seemed a sound dictum to me, but the “rare” part was losing ground.

What are the limits to abortion?  The receond governor of Virginia, a pediatric neurologist, Dr Ralph Northam, said that we birth the child and set it aside and consult with the Mother as to if the child should live.  On the other hand, we have Professor Peteer Singer, who thinks that abortion is ethical up to two years post-oartum.  I think I am with Ms Seaquist in thinking the first trimester is a time of confusion and an area where action might be reasonabe.  Beyond the first trimester there should be a lot more clarity, and lesss action.  Are Mothers and Schools not teaching young women to recognize the signs in their own bodies?

Ms Seaquist supports a reformed strategy, once that sounds more responsible:

One that resets its parameters: away from the extreme of unrestricted abortion through the third trimester — and back to the more defensible parameter of abortion restricted to the first.  In other words, the Golden Mean, not the extreme.
. Here is the style being advocated bt Ms Seaquist:
In my early career in civil rights, in the 1970s and ’80s, when I organized the women’s caucus of a major think-tank (Brookings Institution) and served as an equal opportunity officer for a major American city (San Diego), I found that, for a policy to stick, not trigger reactionary resistance, the Golden Mean worked — moderation in goals (if you keep meeting your goals, over time you make real headway), moderation in implementation (making yourself helpful in reaching those goals), moderation in style (don’t scare people).  I also saw how extremes, expressed as cultural trend (dressing sexy), could hurt “my” women.  “Nothing in excess,” as the ancients put it.  This isn’t about panache (“living big”), but policy: bringing the masses over to our side.
I am a pro-life kind of person, but we live in a pluralisti society.  Is there some medium point at which we can meet?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

  Not that I am advoacting abortion at this point.  I am recognizing that for many fellow Americans it seems a reasonable and legal option.

Sunday, July 3, 2022

Grow Up


For John, BLUFWe have, as a society, evolved to the point that we do not hold peple responsible for their actions, from petty crime to pregnancy.  There will be long term consequences.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




From Ethics Alarms, by Mr Jack Marshall, 30 June 2022.

Here is the lede plus four:

“We seek power and equality in society, and then we continually play the victim”.

Agreed.  I saw a meme the other day (yes memes are reductionist) that captured a part of this whole debacle.  It said something about being able to wear a mask for two years but not being able to wear a condom for 48 seconds.

Aren’t strong women supposed to be able to say ‘no’ to sex with men they don’t want babies with?  Aren’t they able to practice self-care by taking care of their bodies during sex?  Aren’t they smart enough to know that abortion carries risk and do what is necessary to not put themselves in that situation in the first place?

Apparently not.  Apparently it’s men’s fault or the fault of the patriarchy or Trump or Catholics on the Supreme Court.  It’s never a woman’s fault for making terrible disembodied choices that end a life.

You can’t be a strong woman if you won’t value yourself enough to stop sleeping with jerks.  You can’t be a resilient woman if you refuse to take responsibility for your body before pregnancy (or STI’s).  And you can’t be very smart if you deny basic biology in how pregnancies happen.

This is the other side of the Abortion argument.  Not that it should happen, but that if women took charge of their own bodies it would be, in the words of President Bill Clinton, "rare".

I am of the view that every act of sex is an implied contract, which executes upon conception.  If a baby is conceived, it is the Mother and the Father who should commit to each other and the child, the way nature intended it.  Oregnancy does not mean abortion,.  It means marriage.  If one is not in a position to accept that reality, one needs to find an alternative form of sexual gratification.  Actions have consequences, or at least should have consequences.

In the long term the failure of a society to hold its members to responsibilities and consequences will result in the undermining of that society.

Regards  —  Cliff

Thursday, June 30, 2022

What is Key to Feminism?


For John, BLUFzthe suthor asks some of the hard questions about responsibility.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




From The Chhicago Boyz, by Sgt. Mom, 20 June 2022.

Here is the lede plus one:

I swear, I have never been able to understand how the loud and proud Capital-F official feminists made the ready availability of abortion the hill (for the pre-born fetal humans, mostly) to die on.  Yes, I’ve pondered this in blogposts many a time.  The 19th century suffragettes certainly were what we would now cast as pro-life, and so was a modern iteration, IIRC.  (I used to get their newsletter.)  Why that one single aspect, out of all the others which would have a bearing on the lives of females; extended maternal leave and benefits, quality childcare … practically any other concern other than that of abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy could be a rallying ground for those affecting an intense interest in matters of a particularly female orientation.  This, when birth control in so many forms (and for male and female alike) is readily and economically available.  This is not the 19th century anymore, not even the first half of the 20th.  Truly, it is a mystery why this particular cause and no other animates the radical fem-fringe.  I can only surmise that many of the radical and early feminists had abortions, felt horrifically guilty about it all and wished to drag other women into that particular hell with them as a matter of solidarity.

I am myself old enough to have known other women – my peers, mostly – who did for a variety of reasons, decide to take that route.  I understood that they had reasons they felt were valid and I sympathized without approval.  A woman who is pregnant and for whatever reasons, emphatically does not want to be – has a problem, a problem for which all the solutions are painful.  I did not judge then – but did feel the weight of their decision to go with whatever they felt to be the least painful.  No matter how you slice it, with abortion, you are cutting off a potential life – a viable heartbeat, little fingers and toes, a tiny face with eyelashes and a decided character, even in the womb.  So I have always approved of and supported those various enterprises which reached out a helping hand to the inconveniently-pregnant; anyone or any office which offered medical help, moral and actual support and encouragement to a woman who was inconveniently pregnant.  That was putting good intentions where they mattered; into actions which would offer an alternative to abortion.

A part of the power of pregnancy is the responsibility to be responsible.  The idea that abortion is a form of birth control does not appeal to me.  It is right up there with Eugenics as a wrong reason for abortion.

Is the purpose of Feminism to keep women in the workplace and not pregnant?  How will that work out in the long run?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Saturday, June 11, 2022

A Revolution over SCOTUS and Roe


For John, BLUFThere is too much extremist rhetoric over the issue of abortion and it might not end well.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




Here is the sub-headline:

After 100+ days of hiding from the media, His Fraudulency Joe Biden appeared on Jimmy Kimmel’s basement-rated late show and predicted a “mini-revolution” if the atrocity called Roe v. Wade is overturned by the Supreme Court.

From Breitbart, by Reporter John Noltes, 9 June 2022.

Here is the lede plus one:

Biden’s eliminationist rhetoric about mini-revolutions came just hours after police arrested a man with a gun and burglar tools in Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s neighborhood.  Authorities claim he was determined to murder Kavanaugh.  Why?  Because in a leaked document, Kavanaugh signed on to overturn Roe.  Police also say the man was upset over mass shootings.

And now Five-Dollar-a-Gallon Joe is on television speaking approvingly of “revolutions” should Roe v. Wade be overturned.  This is the same Biden who encouraged unruly protests in front of Justices’ homes, despite a law that outlaws that exact thing.

“I don’t think the country will stand for it,” Biden said of a possible Roe defeat in the Supreme Court on Kimmel.  “If in fact the decision comes down the way it does, and these states impose the limitations they’re talking about, it’s going to cause a mini-revolution and they’re going to vote these folks out of office.”

What did President Biden mean by "mini-revolution"?  Is it a political revolt at the ballot boxes in November, sending lots of Democratic Party Progressives flooding into both Houses of Congress.  Or is it more concrete, an insurrection with the offended taking to the streets across the Nation, with Abortion Supporters joining AntiFa and BLM to impose a Frankfurt School Progressive on the "Rubes" (Ms Clinton's "Basket of Deplorables) by force?  Or does "Mini" refer to a Guerilla Campaign by the likes of "Ruth Sent Us" activists working to harrass Pro-Life people and institutions, and judical activities assosiated with restricting abortion avalability.

Actually, none of those options is good.  It reminds me of a certain US Senator talking about individuals reaping the whirlwind.

I think it is the job of the President of the United States to tamp down ideas and movements toward revolution.  That would be the job of Mr Joe Biden.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Wednesday, May 25, 2022

A Mother's Decision


For John, BLUFBrave eecisions by Mothers have allowed a number of us to make from womb to life outside the womb.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




From The Pilot, by ACI Prensa Staff, 19 MAY 2022.

Here is the lede plus four:

Over one hundred years ago on May 18, Emilia Wojtyla gave birth to her second son, Karol, after a difficult and life-threatening pregnancy. The child would grow up to be St. John Paul II.

In a new book published in Poland, Milena Kindziuk describes how St. John Paul II's mother was advised to get an abortion.

"She had to choose between her own life and that of the baby she was carrying, but her deep faith did not allow Emilia to choose abortion," Kindziuk said in an interview with ACI Stampa.

"Deep in her heart she had to be ready to make this sacrifice for the baby she was carrying," she said. It speaks for itself.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Tuesday, May 24, 2022

Primaries Teach Lessons


For John, BLUFIt will be interesting to see how Democrats and Republicans deal with abortion as an election issue, in light of the views of different ethnic groups.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




Here is the sub-headline:

From The Boston Globe, by Reporter Casey Parks of The Washington Post, 6 May 2022, 4:58 p.m.

Here is the lede plus one:

Relatively few Americans hold an absolutist view on the legality of abortion, a Pew Center report released Friday shows.

The report, one of the most comprehensive surveys on abortion attitudes in years, found that 61 percent of Americans believe abortion should be legal in some circumstances and illegal in others. Nineteen percent, or about 1 in 5 Americans, think abortion should be legal in all cases, and 8 percent say it should be illegal without any exceptions.

Earlier (27 April 2022, 6:40 pm), Globe Writer Naomi Martin, gave us a look at the campaign in the Texas 28th District, pitting incumbent representative Henry Cuellar (anti-abortion) against Ms Jessica Cisneros, an immigration attorney (pro-abortion).  The Primary Election is today.


Here is the sub-headline:

Can the threat to Roe v. Wade rally the Latinx electorate in the midterm elections?

Here is th elede plus one:

The conventional wisdom has long been that US La

tino voters generally hold more conservative than liberal views, particularly when it comes to abortion.

We’re about to find out in the midterm elections if that is still holds, at least in a key race in Texas.

From my observation point the bruhaha over Roe v Wade is important, it is ony one of a number of issues driving the views of voters.  Today will be interesting from Texas to Georgia.

Regards  —  Cliff

Monday, May 23, 2022

The Path to November


For John, BLUFElections can be complicated and not turn on the obvious issues.  Democrats counting on the Supreme Court and its decision re Roe v Wade may find themselves surprised and disappointed.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




From Commentary, by Reporter Noah Rothman, 23 May 2022.

Here is the lede plus two:

If hypocrisy is the compliment vice pays virtue, for Democrats, abortion is the vice, and mitigating their party’s losses at the polls in November is the virtue.

Last week, the party in power caught a glimpse of how a Supreme Court judgment striking down Roe v. Wade might provide Democrats with a reprieve from electoral judgment day. An NPR/Marist survey conducted in the immediate wake of a leaked Court decision found that the generic ballot measuring which party the public would like to see in control of Congress found Democrats surging back into contention. The Republican Party’s lead on that ballot test evaporated over the space of a month, shifting by eight points back in the Democratic direction. “Wait till June comes,” Democratic Rep. Ruben Gallego said of this poll, “and you will see that number go higher.”

The Democratic Party and its allied institutions aren’t waiting. With the primaries in pivotal Pennsylvania concluded and the battle lines set, Democratic groups are training their fire on the flawed candidate Republican voters nominated for governor. A forthcoming $6 million campaign targeting Doug Mastriano will not, however, dwell on his support for overturning the results of the 2020 election, his presence at the Capitol Building complex on January 6, or the “QAnon”-affiliated company he keeps. Instead, the Democrat-aligned group Strategic Victory Fund opens with a policy argument against Mastriano–specifically, his stated support for Texas-style legislation proscribing abortion if a fetal heartbeat is detectable.

However, as the article goes on we see some Democrats hedging their bets.  For example, they are not abandoning their House colleague, Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar,who is against a bill codifying Roe v Wade.  The reason is that not all of the groups Democrats claim as their own, eg, Hispanic, are as pro-abortion as the Progressive wing.  Forther, some see bread and butter issues, such as gas prices, food shortages and inflation rearing their ugly heads.

An overturning of Roe v Wade does not promise Democrats victory in November.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Wednesday, May 11, 2022

A Topic With a Constrained Discussion


For John, BLUFAbortion is a hot topic these days, but somemany are reluctant to talk about the larger ramifications, not only the question of sin (of when life begins), but also the social and economic sides of the issue.  Nothing to see here; just move along.



We have been waching the BBC Series, Grantchester.  This evening we watched Series 3, Ephisode 3.  Lots of issues in the story, but one stood out.

In the story there are several robberies at Post Offices.  Indirectly tied to the robberies is the murder of the owner of a local Garage proprieter.  He wife and the mechanic are brought in for interregation regarding the murder.

During interregation the wife (a Roman Catholic) confesses to having had an abortion.  The Vicar, Mr Chambbers, is sitting across from her and she asks the Vicar if God will forgive her.  Usually quick to comfort and console, he says—nothing.

I thought about this for a while.  Was it because she was Roman Catholic and he is Anglican?.  I am doubtful.  The Vicar is always quick with a word for everyone.  Perhaps it is all the sexual tension in the show?  There was a premonition, in that early in this Ephisode DI Geordie Keating's Mistress, Margaret Ward, tells Inspector Keating that for a couple of days she thought she was pregnant.  However, that thread runs off in a different direction.

It strikes me that the real problem for the writers was what to say next.  As a 1950s Vicar he can't possibly say it is not a sin.  On the other hand, for a modern day "Progressive" audience he couldn't say it was a sin, even if (or especially if) he says God will forgive you.  I hink the writers elected to stay silent.  Such is the power of social presssure.

Regards  —  Cliff
  I would think this would apply especially for the US Release through PBS.

Monday, May 9, 2022

Terrorism or Vandalism


For John, BLUFintellectual Honesty is in short supply these days.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




From Althouse, by Professor Ann Althouse, 9 May 2022.

Here is the lede plus one:

It's interesting, the differences that matter to people, the endless quest to distinguish alligators from crocodiles and psychopaths from sociopaths, but what I wanted to know was the difference between vandalism and terrorism.

I'm reading "Madison anti-abortion headquarters hit by apparent Molotov cocktail, vandalism, graffiti" in the Wisconsin State Journal:  "Vandals set a fire inside the Madison headquarters of the anti-abortion group...."

It is obviously terrorism.  It was done to cause terror, rather than just make a mess of things.  However, how one classifies the event is a good indicator of one's position on this issue and on Democracy.

I think, for sure, a clear headed thinker does not call it terrormism when the other side does it and vandalism when one's own side does it.

Hat tip to Ann Althouse.

Regards  —  Cliff

Saturday, May 7, 2022

The Real Issue Is Preserving the Republic


For John, BLUF:  I hear people, like The New Yorker's Susan B. Glasser saying:
Faced with such challenges, President Biden seemed finally ready to abandon the pretense that he could once again unite the fractured nation and heal our Trump-distorted politics with some old-fashioned bipartisan Senate dealmaking.  That comforting fiction helped him defeat Donald Trump in 2020 but has been comprehensively debunked by Biden’s subsequent struggles in governing.  In remarks to reporters on Wednesday, the President previewed his new, more partisan message for the campaign to come:  “This is about a lot more than abortion,” he said.  Republicans are radical and dangerous, not only anti-woman but anti-gay, anti-personal freedom, and anti-democracy.  The Trumpist maga movement, he said, “is the most extreme political organization that’s existed in recent American history.”
[Shouldn't MAGA be all caps?]

So, Bipartisan Biden was a pretense to get elected.  I don't think Ms Glasser respects either honesty or our system of government.  Would she destroy the Constitution to allow infanticide.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




Here is the sub-headline:

The Court, like the U.S. Constitution, was designed to be a limit on the excesses of democracy.  Roe denied, not upheld, the rights of citizens to decide democratically.

From the Greenwald Substac, by Reporer Glenn Greenwald, 3 May 2022.

After several introductory paragraphs, Mr Greenwald gets to the nub of the issue:

Every time there is a controversy regarding a Supreme Court ruling, the same set of radical fallacies emerges regarding the role of the Court, the Constitution and how the American republic is designed to function.  Each time the Court invalidates a democratically elected law on the ground that it violates a constitutional guarantee — as happened in Roe — those who favor the invalidated law proclaim that something “undemocratic” has transpired, that it is a form of “judicial tyranny” for “five unelected judges” to overturn the will of the majority.  Conversely, when the Court refuses to invalidate a democratically elected law, those who regard that law as pernicious, as an attack on fundamental rights, accuse the Court of failing to protect vulnerable individuals.

This by-now-reflexive discourse about the Supreme Court ignores its core function.  Like the U.S. Constitution itself, the Court is designed to be an anti-majoritarian check against the excesses of majoritarian sentiment.  The Founders wanted to establish a democracy that empowered majorities of citizens to choose their leaders, but also feared that majorities would be inclined to coalesce around unjust laws that would deprive basic rights, and thus sought to impose limits on the power of majorities as well.

The Federalist Papers are full of discussions about the dangers of majoritarian excesses. The most famous of those is James Madison's Federalist 10, where he warns of "factions…who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”  One of the primary concerns in designing the new American republic, if not the chief concern, was how to balance the need to establish rule by the majority (democracy) with the equally compelling need to restrain majorities from veering into impassioned, self-interested attacks on the rights of minorities (republican government).  As Madison put it:  “To secure the public good, and private rights, against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our enquiries are directed.”  Indeed, the key difference between a pure democracy and a republic is that the rights of the majority are unrestricted in the former, but are limited in the latter.  The point of the Constitution, and ultimately the Supreme Court, was to establish a republic, not a pure democracy, that would place limits on the power of majorities.

Remember what Dr Benjamin Franklin replied to the woman as to what the Constitutional Convention of 1787 have given us?
A Republic, if you can keep it.
The end of Roe v Wadd will not end abortions, nor will it end abortion on demand in many parts of our Great Nation.  It will mean that in those parts of the nation where the Citizens think there should be limits to abortion, there could be such limits.

It might also mean a certain internal dignity for those women who conceived a child in difficult circumstances and carried that child to term.

Regards  —  Cliff

Tuesday, May 3, 2022

More Thoughts on the SCOTUS Leak


For John, BLUFThe leak of a DRAFT SCOTUS Opinion provides a broad range of issues for discussion.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




From Ethics Alarms, by Mr Jack Marshall, 3 May 2022.

Mr Marshall has several good points on the subject, besides the tweet previously covered in this blog.  For example, the last big SCOTUS leak was, ironically, with Roe v Wade  Then there is "The law school rot connection."  That is a winner for me.  There is a look at what Reporter Glenn Greenwald had to say on the issue.

Worth the time.

Regards  —  Cliff

The SCOTUS Decision Leaks


For John, BLUFThe deliberate leaking of a DRAFT SCOTUS decision on an abortion issue is an ethical blot on the Staff of the Supreme Court.  It would also be a point to examine larger social issues.  Not going to happen.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




Posted at InstaPundet, by Mr Ed Driscoll, 3 May 2022, 2:22 pm.

Here is the tweet:

Dave Smith
@ComicDaveSmith
Progressives have given away their two favorite go to responses on abortion.

“My body my choice” rings pretty hollow after Vax mandates.

“It’s a women’s issue” is tough if there’s no definition of woman.

8:46 AM · May 3, 2022·Twitter for iPhone

The mobius loop is a connected strip of paper with no inside or outside.

At the end of the day, this is scoring points, but misses the key point, as long as women get pregnant there will be abortions and as long as there are abortions there will be the taking of human life.

My own position is that abortion is wrong, but, given our pluralistic society, abortions should be legal through the first trimester, perhaps the first five months.  After that there should be no taking of life.  Those who perform partial birth or post partium abortions (infanticide) are guilty of manslaughter.  I would allow no late term abortions for rape.  There is no incest exception, as incest is rape.  The life of the Mother should always be a consideration for the mother.  Delayed decisions should not be rewarded.

Not often discussed is the sociology of this issue.  For example, there is that fact that since the time of Ms Margaret Sanger abortions have been focused on Black Women.  Does this have anything to do with the eugenics and racist views of Ms Sanger?  The next question is why abortions need to be available for the full nine months of a pregnancy?  It would seem responsible women would quickly know they are pregnant.  Some realize almost immediately.  Others take a month or so to realize.  The "I'm just getting fat" line seems pretty weak.  Further, are parents, schools and girlfriends not helping young women to form an understanding of the responsibilities involed in having sex.  Responsibilities to one's partner and in the event of conception.  While I am not advocating use of anti-pregnancy actions, they are inherently better than abortion, after life has begun. Abortion should not be the ultimate birth control method.  Planning on that is irresponsible.  Responsible adults want to have fun, but they should be prepared to be responsible for the results of their actions. Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Saturday, September 11, 2021

Vaccine Mandates


For John, BLUFThe President, apparently without consulting with Congress, has assumed dictatorial powers.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




Here is the sub-headline:

'President Biden caused a firestorm yesterday by announcing his mandate'

From Fox Business News, by Anchor Larry Kudlow, 10 September 2021.

Here is the lede plus two:

"If they'll not help... if these governors won't help us beat the pandemic, I’ll use my power as president to get them out of the way."

Don't take it from me. Take a listen to the president himself who is thumbing his nose at our nation's governors and after he thumbs his nose at them, he's putting his finger in their eye.

Federalism is dead. Don't take it from me, take it from President Biden.

The Constitution?  The Bill of Rights?  Roe v Wade?.  The role of the US Congress?

All gone in a flash because not everyone will do as President Joseph Biden says.

It is almost like Donald Trump won in 2020.  Not the real Donald J Trump, but the one pictured in the minds of Progressives and many Democrats.

But, it wasn't just a Bidenism.  His staff was out backing up his move.  For example, on the CNN Don Lemon Tonight Show we have the Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, former Congressman Cedric Richmond.


Here is the sub-headline:

'We won’t let one or two individuals stand in the way,' adviser Cedric Richmond declared

And this article's lede:

Senior White House adviser Cedric Richmond declared Thursday that President Joe Biden would "run over" governors that stood in the way of his efforts to mandate vaccinations against the coronavirus in companies with more than 100 employees.
We are going to run over the Governors?

If I thought the agencies of the Federal Government followed the science, let along understood it, I might have some willingness to concede the President was trying to help us.  As it is, I think he is just swatting wildly at the problem, and breaking things in the process.

Regards  —  Cliff

Monday, September 6, 2021

Abortion to Rescue President Biden


For John, BLUFNo wonder Democrats are indifferent to those Americans left behind in Afghanistan, given their lack of any interest in the unborn terminated for convenience.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




Here is the sub-headline:

"... his handling of Afghanistan following a chaotic withdrawal.  Biden’s ratings for handling the economy also have declined, from 52 percent positive in April to 45 percent in the latest survey."

From the Ann Althouse Blog, by Professor Ann Althouse, 5 September 2021.

Professor Althouse has fun with the Opinion Piece from The Washington Post, and well she should.&nbp; Aside from misquoting Scripture, Opinion Writer Kathleen Parker ("Opinion:  The Supreme Court rides to Biden’s rescue") seems to be celebrating the idea of unborn children being killed.  Abortion will pull up President Biden's poll numbers.

Here is the money paragraph:

I support abortion rights, but there's something terribly wrong about exulting over the partisan advantages to be wrung from abortion as a political issue.  Yay, for us!  Rainbows!  It's a grim matter of death and destruction.  It's in horrible taste — at the very least — to say after all the suffering in Afghanistan and from covid, the hurricane, and the fires, it's so great to get back to good old abortion, where we can stir up the old-time hysteria and rile up the voters the way we've been doing it for 50 years.
The rainbow comes from the citation of the Four Horsemen of the Apocolypse, from the Book of Revelation.

So, opposition to the Texas Fetal Heartbeat abortion law, and the US Supree Court's refusal to strike it down in its crib, will stir up the voters and return President Biden, a nominal Roman Catholic, to high poll numbers?

Commentor Gilbar notes that per polling by the Susan B. Anthony List:

The Democratic Party’s radical position of unlimited access to abortion funded by taxpayer dollars is shared by only 7% of Millennials.
Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Thursday, January 21, 2021

Compromised Leaders


For John, BLUFVoting is a compromising action.  Not eveyone we vote for has the same moral standards we aspire to.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




Here is the sub-headline:

I agree with those who argued last year that the primary responsibility for effective Catholic witness in public life rests with lay Catholics. Lay Catholics are to be salt and light in society, including politics.

From The Pilot, by Professor George Weigel, 20 January 2021.

Here is the lede plus three:

"For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female:  for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:27-28).

Catholics who take this apostolic teaching seriously will understand that our first obligation toward our brother in Christ, President Joseph R. Biden, Jr., is to be in Christian solidarity with him through prayer.  We pray for his health, strength, and courage.  We pray that he be granted the gift Solomon asked of God: wisdom in governance.  We pray for his deepening conversion to Christ.  Solidarity in prayer is the first duty of American Catholics toward the new president today.  That is bedrock Catholicism.

There is no doubt, however, that the inauguration of President Biden, the second baptized Catholic to attain the presidency of the United States, creates an inflection point for Catholicism in America, as we strive to be a communion of disciples in mission.

Were he to follow through on campaign promises to bring the Little Sisters of the Poor to heel over the provision of contraceptives, some of them abortifacients, to their employees; were he to support federal funding of abortion, at home and internationally through U.S. foreign aid; were his administration to promote the practices of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide; if, through his Department of Health and Human Services, he were to hollow out religious freedom by repealing the federal regulations that now protect the conscience rights of Catholic doctors, nurses, and other health-care workers -- then Mr. Biden would have demonstrated, as president, that he is not in full communion with the Catholic Church, because he would have deliberately facilitated what the Gospel and the Church teach are grave moral evils and injustices.

That is one very long sentence, but it hangs together.  The rule of thumb I learned was 20 words, unless you are an excellent writer, a writer in the same class as Shakespeare or Milton.

In the end, he notes how the President, and other Catholics, support actions that deviate from Catholic moral teachings.  Then he puts it upon lay persons to uphold those moral standards.

Regards  —  Cliff

Wednesday, January 13, 2021

COVID Vaccine and Morality


For John, BLUFThere has been some question as to the morality of the COVID-19 Vaccine due to the use of cell lines from aborted fetuses in development.  Not an unreasonable question.  Here is an answer.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




Here is the sub-headline:

In Pope Approved Letter, Explains What Would or Could Be Moral Acceptability & Why

From Zenit, by Reporters Deborah Castellano Lubov, 21 December, 2020, at 12:49.

Here is the article:

The Vatican has published a note about the morality of COVID-19 vaccines.

The Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in the Dec. 21 ‘note on the morality of using some anti-Covid-19 vaccines’ recognized “the question of the use of vaccines, in general, is often at the center of controversy in the forum of public opinion.” Pope Francis examined it and ordered its publication during his Dec. 17 audience with Cardinal Ladaria, CDF Prefect, the note reads.

In the note whose full text can be read in English below and was provided in three languages, the CDF notes that “in recent months, this Congregation has received several requests for guidance regarding the use of vaccines against the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes Covid-19, which, in the course of research and production, employed cell lines drawn from tissue obtained from two abortions that occurred in the last century.”

The CDF’s prefect and secretary observed “diverse and sometimes conflicting pronouncements” in the mass media by bishops, Catholic associations, and experts have raised questions about the morality of the use of these vaccines.

The Vatican officials first drew readers’ attention to an “already important pronouncement” of the Pontifical Academy for Life (PAL) on this issue, entitled “Moral reflections on vaccines prepared from cells derived from aborted human fetuses” (5 June 2005). They also reminded that the CDF expressed itself on the matter with the Instruction Dignitas Personae (September 8, 2008, cf. nn. 34 and 35), and in 2017, PAL returned to the topic with a Note.

“These documents already offer some general directive criteria,” it noted.

Now that first vaccines are being distributed…

Because the first vaccines against Covid-19 are already available for distribution and administration in various countries, the CDF expressed its wish to offer some indications for clarification of this matter.

“We do not intend to judge the safety and efficacy of these vaccines, although ethically relevant and necessary, as this evaluation is the responsibility of biomedical researchers and drug agencies.

Only Objective Is to Consider Moral Aspects

“Here, our objective is only to consider the moral aspects,” it clarified, “of the use of the vaccines against Covid-19 that have been developed from cell lines derived from tissues obtained from two fetuses that were not spontaneously aborted.”

As the CDF’s Instruction Dignitas Personae stated in 2008, in cases where cells from aborted fetuses are employed to create cell lines for use in scientific research, “there exist differing degrees of responsibility”[1] of cooperation in evil.

For example, “in organizations where cell lines of illicit origin are being utilized, the responsibility of those who make the decision to use them is not the same as that of those who have no voice in such a decision”.[2]

Conditions for Morally Acceptable Receipt

“In this sense, when ethically irreproachable Covid-19 vaccines are not available,” the note stated, “it is morally acceptable to receive Covid-19 vaccines that have used cell lines from aborted fetuses in their research and production process.”

The CDF explained that examples of being ‘not available,’ would for instance be “where vaccines without ethical problems are not made available to physicians and patients, or where their distribution is more difficult due to special storage and transport conditions, or when various types of vaccines are distributed in the same country but health authorities do not allow citizens to choose the vaccine with which to be inoculated.”

Fundamental Reason for Considering Their Use as ‘Morally Licit’

” The fundamental reason for considering the use of these vaccines morally licit is that the kind of cooperation in evil (passive material cooperation) in the procured abortion from which these cell lines originate is, on the part of those making use of the resulting vaccines, remote.”

The CDF stated that the “moral duty to avoid such passive material cooperation is not obligatory if there is a grave danger,” such as “the otherwise uncontainable spread of a serious pathological agent[3]–in this case, the pandemic spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes Covid-19. It must therefore be considered that, in such a case, all vaccinations recognized as clinically safe and effective can be used in good conscience with the certain knowledge that the use of such vaccines does not constitute formal cooperation with the abortion from which the cells used in production of the vaccines derive.”

No Direct Nor Indirect Practice of Abortion

“It should be emphasized, however, that the morally licit use of these types of vaccines, in the particular conditions that make it so, does not in itself constitute a legitimation, even indirect, of the practice of abortion, and necessarily assumes the opposition to this practice by those who make use of these vaccines.”

“In fact,” the next point states, “the licit use of such vaccines does not and should not in any way imply that there is a moral endorsement of the use of cell lines proceeding from aborted fetuses.[4]”

The Vatican explicitly says both pharmaceutical companies and governmental health agencies “are therefore encouraged to produce, approve, distribute and offer ethically acceptable vaccines that do not create problems of conscience for either health care providers or the people to be vaccinated.”

“At the same time, practical reason makes evident that vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary.”

In any case, from the ethical point of view, it continues, the morality of vaccination depends not only on the duty to protect one’s own health, but also on the duty to pursue the common good.

“In the absence of other means to stop or even prevent the epidemic,” it points out, “the common good may recommend vaccination, especially to protect the weakest and most exposed. Those who, however, for reasons of conscience, refuse vaccines produced with cell lines from aborted fetuses, must do their utmost to avoid, by other prophylactic means and appropriate behavior, becoming vehicles for the transmission of the infectious agent.”

Specifically, the CDF says they “must avoid” any risk to the health of those who cannot be vaccinated for medical or other reasons, and who are the most vulnerable.

The note also reminds the “moral imperative for the pharmaceutical industry, governments and international organizations to ensure that vaccines, which are effective and safe from a medical point of view, as well as ethically acceptable, are also accessible to the poorest countries in a manner that is not costly for them.”

Otherwise, it warns, the lack of access to vaccines would become another sign of discrimination and injustice that condemns poor countries to continue living in health, economic and social poverty.

Here is the Vatican-provided text of the CDF’s note:

***

Note on the morality of using some anti-Covid-19 vaccines

The question of the use of vaccines, in general, is often at the center of controversy in the forum of public opinion. In recent months, this Congregation has received several requests for guidance regarding the use of vaccines against the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes Covid-19, which, in the course of research and production, employed cell lines drawn from tissue obtained from two abortions that occurred in the last century. At the same time, diverse and sometimes conflicting pronouncements in the mass media by bishops, Catholic associations, and experts have raised questions about the morality of the use of these vaccines.

There is already an important pronouncement of the Pontifical Academy for Life on this issue, entitled “Moral reflections on vaccines prepared from cells derived from aborted human fetuses” (5 June 2005). Further, this Congregation expressed itself on the matter with the Instruction Dignitas Personae (September 8, 2008, cf. nn. 34 and 35). In 2017, the Pontifical Academy for Life returned to the topic with a Note. These documents already offer some general directive criteria.

Since the first vaccines against Covid-19 are already available for distribution and administration in various countries, this Congregation desires to offer some indications for clarification of this matter. We do not intend to judge the safety and efficacy of these vaccines, although ethically relevant and necessary, as this evaluation is the responsibility of biomedical researchers and drug agencies. Here, our objective is only to consider the moral aspects of the use of the vaccines against Covid-19 that have been developed from cell lines derived from tissues obtained from two fetuses that were not spontaneously aborted.

1. As the Instruction Dignitas Personae states, in cases where cells from aborted fetuses are employed to create cell lines for use in scientific research, “there exist differing degrees of responsibility”[1] of cooperation in evil. For example, “in organizations where cell lines of illicit origin are being utilized, the responsibility of those who make the decision to use them is not the same as that of those who have no voice in such a decision”.[2]

2. In this sense, when ethically irreproachable Covid-19 vaccines are not available (e.g. in countries where vaccines without ethical problems are not made available to physicians and patients, or where their distribution is more difficult due to special storage and transport conditions, or when various types of vaccines are distributed in the same country but health authorities do not allow citizens to choose the vaccine with which to be inoculated) it is morally acceptable to receive Covid-19 vaccines that have used cell lines from aborted fetuses in their research and production process.

3. The fundamental reason for considering the use of these vaccines morally licit is that the kind of cooperation in evil (passive material cooperation) in the procured abortion from which these cell lines originate is, on the part of those making use of the resulting vaccines, remote. The moral duty to avoid such passive material cooperation is not obligatory if there is a grave danger, such as the otherwise uncontainable spread of a serious pathological agent[3]–in this case, the pandemic spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes Covid-19. It must therefore be considered that, in such a case, all vaccinations recognized as clinically safe and effective can be used in good conscience with the certain knowledge that the use of such vaccines does not constitute formal cooperation with the abortion from which the cells used in production of the vaccines derive. It should be emphasized, however, that the morally licit use of these types of vaccines, in the particular conditions that make it so, does not in itself constitute a legitimation, even indirect, of the practice of abortion, and necessarily assumes the opposition to this practice by those who make use of these vaccines.

4. In fact, the licit use of such vaccines does not and should not in any way imply that there is a moral endorsement of the use of cell lines proceeding from aborted fetuses.[4] Both pharmaceutical companies and governmental health agencies are therefore encouraged to produce, approve, distribute and offer ethically acceptable vaccines that do not create problems of conscience for either health care providers or the people to be vaccinated.

5. At the same time, practical reason makes evident that vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary. In any case, from the ethical point of view, the morality of vaccination depends not only on the duty to protect one’s own health, but also on the duty to pursue the common good. In the absence of other means to stop or even prevent the epidemic, the common good may recommend vaccination, especially to protect the weakest and most exposed. Those who, however, for reasons of conscience, refuse vaccines produced with cell lines from aborted fetuses, must do their utmost to avoid, by other prophylactic means and appropriate behavior, becoming vehicles for the transmission of the infectious agent. In particular, they must avoid any risk to the health of those who cannot be vaccinated for medical or other reasons, and who are the most vulnerable.

6. Finally, there is also a moral imperative for the pharmaceutical industry, governments and international organizations to ensure that vaccines, which are effective and safe from a medical point of view, as well as ethically acceptable, are also accessible to the poorest countries in a manner that is not costly for them. The lack of access to vaccines, otherwise, would become another sign of discrimination and injustice that condemns poor countries to continue living in health, economic and social poverty.[5]

The Sovereign Pontiff Francis, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on 17 December 2020, examined the present Note and ordered its publication.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on 21 December 2020, Liturgical Memorial of Saint Peter Canisius.

Luis F. Card. Ladaria, S.I.           + S.E. Mons. Giacomo Morandi
PrefectTitular Archbishop of Cerveteri
Secretary

________________________

[1] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8th December 2008), n. 35; AAS (100), 884.

[2] Ibid, 885.

[3] Cfr. Pontifical Academy for Life, “Moral reflections on vaccines prepared from cells derived from aborted human foetuses”, 5th June 2005.

[4] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruct. Dignitas Personae, n. 35: “When the illicit action is endorsed by the laws which regulate healthcare and scientific research, it is necessary to distance oneself from the evil aspects of that system in order not to give the impression of a certain toleration or tacit acceptance of actions which are gravely unjust. Any appearance of acceptance would in fact contribute to the growing indifference to, if not the approval of, such actions in certain medical and political circles”,

[5] Cfr. Francis, Address to the members of the “Banco Farmaceutico” foundation, 19 September 2020.

Hat tip to Memeorandum.

Hat tip to Ann Althouse.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff