Posts Tagged ‘abortion’


The One to Reverse President George W. Bush’s Executive Orders?

November 9, 2008

The Washington Post reports that some of the One’s first actions as Pres. will be to reverse several of President George W. Bush’s executive orders:

Obama himself has signaled, for example, that he intends to reverse Bush’s controversial limit on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, a decision that scientists say has restrained research into some of the most promising avenues for defeating a wide array of diseases, such as Parkinson’s.

Bush’s August 2001 decision pleased religious conservatives who have moral objections to the use of cells from days-old human embryos, which are destroyed in the process.

But Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) said that during Obama’s final swing through her state in October, she reminded him that because the restrictions were never included in legislation, Obama “can simply reverse them by executive order.” Obama, she said, “was very receptive to that.” Opponents of the restrictions have already drafted an executive order he could sign.

The new president is also expected to lift a so-called global gag rule barring international family planning groups that receive U.S. aid from counseling women about the availability of abortion, even in countries where the procedure is legal, said Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, he rescinded the Reagan-era regulation, known as the Mexico City policy, but Bush reimposed it.

“We have been communicating with his transition staff” almost daily, Richards said. “We expect to see a real change.”

AS has been noted in multiple venues, we are currently funding placental and umbilical cord stem cell research. It would be folly to fund embryonic stem cell research as long as Roe v. Wade is law in the U.S. If embryonic stem cell research is funded, whereby cells from a destroyed pre-born infant are used, we would only be a stone’s throw away from federally funded abortions. Once something becomes federally funded it can only expand in that direction.  If Roe v. Wade were to be reversed, federal funding of embryonic stem cell research would not be as much of an issue because the issue of abortion would be a state issue whereby each state can adopt whatever abortion laws they want. It would not be a federal issue so any action with regard to embryonic stem cells would neither expand nor contract the right to terminate a human life in utero. 

With regard to the Mexico City rule Ed Morissey writes:

While American voters feel some ambiguity on abortion, they overwhelmingly do not want their tax dollars paying for or facilitating abortions.  The Mexico City rule forbade federal funds to be used to facilitate the acquisition of abortions by groups abroad, much as the Hyde Amendment prohibited federal funds to be used in the same manner domestically.  If Obama rescinds it, he can expect a great deal of outrage from pro-life groups and a reopening of the debate over the use of tax money to procure abortions anywhere.

In addition, on the energy/environmental front:

While Obama said at a news conference last week that his top priority would be to stimulate the economy and create jobs, his advisers say that focus will not delay key shifts in social and regulatory policies, including some — such as the embrace of new environmental safeguards — that Obama has said will have long-term, beneficial impacts on the economy.

The president-elect has said, for example, that he intends to quickly reverse the Bush administration’s decision last December to deny California the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles. “Effectively tackling global warming demands bold and innovative solutions, and given the failure of this administration to act, California should be allowed to pioneer,” Obama said in January.

California had sought permission from the Environmental Protection Agency to require that greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles be cut by 30 percent between 2009 and 2016, effectively mandating that cars achieve a fuel economy standard of at least 36 miles per gallon within eight years. Seventeen other states had promised to adopt California’s rules, representing in total 45 percent of the nation’s automobile market. Environmentalists cheered the California initiative because it would stoke innovation that would potentially benefit the entire country.

“An early move by the Obama administration to sign the California waiver would signal the seriousness of intent to reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil and build a future for the domestic auto market,” said Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Before the election, Obama told others that he favors declaring that carbon dioxide emissions are endangering human welfare, following an EPA task force recommendation last December that Bush and his aides shunned in order to protect the utility and auto industries.

Robert Sussman, who was the EPA’s deputy administrator during the Clinton administration and is now overseeing EPA transition planning for Obama, wrote a paper last spring strongly recommending such a finding. Others in the campaign have depicted it as an issue on which Obama is keen to show that politics must not interfere with scientific advice.

More than a suspect economic policy, nothing in the nascent Messiah administration scares me more than his energy policy. We are only a baby steps away from cap and trade. The One has showed an unwillingness to drill for new energy, to build safe nuclear power plants, and to expand clean coal. In fact, he believes his policies, specifically cap and trade, would bankrupt the coal industry. We, the American people will be left with a rising electricity bill and rising oil prices while we act as a test kitchen for alternative methods of generating energy, many if not all of which are bound to fail. 

– Yossarian


The Road Map

November 6, 2008

Alright, indulge me for a moment as I get on this megaphone and lay a framework for what happens next. 

1. Accept It – we lost. we lost bad. Just because we saved Mitch McConnell and may have saved Stevens’ seat (temporarily) as well as Chambliss’ and Coleman’s, we lost. The map has changed. For two cycles we had Michael Moore’s erroneous designation of Jesusland and they had the coasts (consequentially where I live). The map has been redrawn and the rules are now changed. Several things have become apparent from this election that we need to come to grips with.

2. Abortion is approached incorrectly – Conservatism lost in Colorado and South Dakota. An amendment to ban abortion lost by 10% in South Dakota If it is going to pass anywhere, it is going to pass in South Dakota. That is a referendum on our agenda. I am not saying that we are wrong about abortion and the value for human life, but the approach is wrong. I believe that issues of choice and life are the wrong way to couch the issue because the other side will not listen when the catch word is released. Abortion should be couched in a two tier Robert George/ Peter SInger right/left analysis. First, are you willing to acknowledge that a fetus is a human? Second, are you willing to extinguish a life for the economic welfare of society? That is the question. Let’s remove women’s rights and religion from it and take it for what it is, a Constitutional right that some are willing to take away from the least of us. Twenty-three pairs of chromosomes is twenty-three pairs of chromosomes no matter which way you toss them. This leads us into 

3. The Rural Vote – the failure of the abortion amendment in San Francisco as well as the turn in the states (especially ethanol voting Iowa) tells us that the “redneck” (as Murtha would couch it) vote does not belong to us. We have taken the redneck vote for granted as much as the Democrats have used the African-American people.  I am not calling the Republican party the party of greed or saying that we have not done enough for the middle class. I am saying that we can’t win the middle class vote unless we explain to them that we are catering to them.  What is the best way to do so? Connect with them. The secret to the Republican Revolution of 2004 was that the new congress was the middle class vote. Pollster Frank Luntz gave each Republican running for the positions a football. At the rallies, the candidates would throw the football at someone in the audience who, when they had possession, would be able to air their thoughts and grievances. Those are our Joe the Plumbers. If we listen, we can help them. Next, we have the non-rural blue collars

3. The Union Vote – I have posted about this before and have gotten crap for this and will likely get more in the future, but our best bet for victory is to abandon Wal-Mart or find a fine balance. First, before I get into this, Wal-Mart is the best friend of the middle class there is. If you live in a rural area, Wal-Mart keeps your gas low and their prices low by providing everything in one place. Wal-Mart can allow a middle or lower class individual to live like an upper middle class individual. Wal-Mart is the biggest Republican donor. The problem is that the union leaders are anti Wal-Mart. We have the perfect opportunity right now to take the union vote. President Elect [ ] and the Liberal Congress are ready to institute card check. This will impair union members individual freedoms to vote the way they want to, especially in one state…

4. Target Nevada 2010 – After Kerry lost 2004, the nutroots, which I guess we are now, had a game plan to undermine the Bush administration. They targeted important Congressional seats, taking the House and the Senate and torpedoing our presumptive 2008 candidate, George Allen. To get back in power, we need to target Nevada hard starting tomorrow. Someone there needs to step up. My colleague, Reagan21, says to look to Jon Porter and Dean Heller as potential candidates to take Reid down. If you are in Nevada and are pissed, get up and start mobilizing.  But…

5. Other Senate seats – Because of our success in 2002, 2010 is going to be the biggest Senate race we have in the coming decade. We are defending 18 senate seats and they are defending 14 senate seats. Odds are in their favor. It is very likely that McCain’s seat in Arizona will be an open seat as well as Arlen Specter’s in Pennsylvania. The Democrats have numerous seats which they have NO chance of losing including Russ Feingold, Pat Leahy, Chuck Schumer, Evan Bayh, Daniel Inouye, and Barbara Boxer. If you are in Arkansas, target Blanche Lincoln. Libertarians in Colorado, what has Ken Salazar done to reduce government size? Jesse Jackson Jr. will be the Messiah’s replacement and will be in a position of weakness as an appointment. Jack Ryan, would you care to come back to the party and help? We can  take Byron Dorgan out in North Dakota if we organize early. I think that the Patty Murray Washington seat is competitive in light of the Oregon Senatorial race. We stand to lose unless we start acting up and taking care of business form day 1. Obama won, not because he was competent, but because he had an excellent ground game. We need to take that ground game and use it to our advantage, which Ieads us to…

6. The New Republicans Same As The Old –  Obama won by tapping into discontent and supposedly tapping into new voters. I say supposedly because at this point, the vote total is less than it was in 2004. Regardless, if we are losing the rural vote and are unlikely to gain the ignorant college vote, we need to find new voters. Besides the union vote, listed above, who shares values with us, there is another group out there that expands every year that we need to tap into. We need to tap into new Americans. The proudest Americans are those that have fled the oppression of their country to arrive here in the land of opportunity. As soon as they become citizens, we need to explain to them what our ideology is and register them as Republican. These individuals will go back to their communities, likely already socially conservative and become voices for the cause of small government. Although, there reaches a point…

7. Tipping Point – Not Malcolm Gladwell, but the point of no return. My friend and I had dinner tonight and we discussed this point. Under an Obamastration, we may cross the point where the individual making the medium income in America is getting more from the government than he puts in. That will push the tax burden to the one half of the people and that is something that there is no coming back from. There is no way to spread the responsibility for running the country back to all people after you put the burden on the shoulders of the few. If this point happens, look to see a massive realignment of state interests and renewed interest in federalism. We will want our state laws to govern more than the national government unless…

8. Foreign Policy – Joe Biden pretty much said it is inevitable that there will be an attack on the US or on US interests in an Obamastration. Just today, Israel launched missiles into the Gaza, and they responded in kind. Russia moved missiles to the EU border. Russia has been selling tanks to Venezuela. China always looms. Iran’s elections changed nothing. An international crisis is brewing. While FDR was preceded by Coolidge and Hoover who weren’t known for their internationalist tendencies, PE BHO is preceded by W. and Clinton who had a pervasive influence all over the world. He can’t just duck his head in the sand and hide from the harsh reality of what is going on. If he does…

9. Republican Leadership – Contrary to popular belief we have strong leadership in both houses. Blunt and Cantor are running hard and strong as voices of opposition in the House. Pence was one of the strongest proponents of energy reform and Boehner is there. Today we had wonderful essays about conservatism from Reps. Flake and McCotter, neither of whom I was aware of till today. I would also love to see Jeri Thompson (video linked) run for congress in 2010. In the Senate, we are weakened but there is still strength. We will have Mitch McConnell ready to filibuster any judges or the Fairness Doctrine. John Cornyn can take a leadership position. Whoever will replace Ted Stevens needs to be a reformer. Lastly, let’s face facts…

10. Rush is Right – Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican party, not the conservative wing, but THE Republican party. None of us bloggers who are in our 20’s would be around if it was not for Rush. Half our elected congress-folk would not be in office. He taught us civics growing up, he explained federalism and he has not become marginalized. Others, I’m looking at you Ross Douthat, have questioned Rush’s logic during the end-days of the election, but he was completely right. McCain did not bring any Democrats over besides the Hillary people who would have gone to Romney or Huckabee. They voted the way they did because of the way they were treated, not because of a special alignment with McCain. We failed with the conservatism and we need to win it back. Last night, Obama said that America has never been a nation of individuals. This collectivist malarkey is what Rush has been preaching against for the past 20 years. Trust him and trust us to guide you through troubled times. Join a campaign tomorrow. If not, find someone without a drug record you can believe in.  Mobilize my people!


Princeton Prof. on Obama’s Abortion Record

October 17, 2008

Robert P. George, Princeton Professor:

{…} Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress.


Yet there are Catholics and Evangelicals-even self-identified pro-life Catholics and Evangelicals – who aggressively promote Obama’s candidacy and even declare him the preferred candidate from the pro-life point of view.

What is going on here?

[…] … on abortion and the industrial creation of embryos for destructive research, there is a profound difference of moral principle, not just prudence. These questions reveal the character and judgment of each man. Barack Obama is deeply committed to the belief that members of an entire class of human beings have no rights that others must respect. Across the spectrum of pro-life concerns for the unborn, he would deny these small and vulnerable members of the human family the basic protection of the laws. Over the next four to eight years, as many as five or even six U.S. Supreme Court justices could retire. Obama enthusiastically supports Roe v. Wade and would appoint judges who would protect that morally and constitutionally disastrous decision and even expand its scope. Indeed, in an interview in Glamour magazine, he made it clear that he would apply a litmus test for Supreme Court nominations: jurists who do not support Roe will not be considered for appointment by Obama. John McCain, by contrast, opposes Roe and would appoint judges likely to overturn it. This would not make abortion illegal, but it would return the issue to the forums of democratic deliberation, where pro-life Americans could engage in a fair debate to persuade fellow citizens that killing the unborn is no way to address the problems of pregnant women in need.

What kind of America do we want our beloved nation to be? Barack Obama’s America is one in which being human just isn’t enough to warrant care and protection. It is an America where the unborn may legitimately be killed without legal restriction, even by the grisly practice of partial-birth abortion. It is an America where a baby who survives abortion is not even entitled to comfort care as she dies on a stainless steel table or in a soiled linen bin. It is a nation in which some members of the human family are regarded as inferior and others superior in fundamental dignity and rights. In Obama’s America, public policy would make a mockery of the great constitutional principle of the equal protection of the law. In perhaps the most telling comment made by any candidate in either party in this election year, Senator Obama, when asked by Rick Warren when a baby gets human rights, replied: ”that question is above my pay grade.” It was a profoundly disingenuous answer: For even at a state senator’s pay grade, Obama presumed to answer that question with blind certainty. His unspoken answer then, as now, is chilling: human beings have no rights until infancy – and if they are unwanted survivors of attempted abortions, not even then.

Hotair has extensive coverage of Obama’s anti-life abortion record.


Right to Privacy?

October 16, 2008

In last night’s debate Abortion finally came to the forefront.  McCain called Obama out on voting against partial birth abortions, and against legislation which would protect babies born after failed abortions.  Obama tried to weasel his way out by presenting his side of the story.  It seemed viable…except for the small fact that it was all lies.  Obama is a great speaker and I see why those who don’t do their homework would vote for this guy.  However, I don’t believe one word which comes out of his mouth.  I do my homework and find the truth. 

Related to abortion, the topic of Judicial Appointees was covered by the candidates.  Obama said some things which made me cringe.  While speaking, Obama, a supposed Constitutional scholar, misspoke on Roe v. Wade.  It is true that in Roe, when it first came down, the Court created a new right to privacy under the 14th amendment.  The right to privacy, in this sense, is nowhere to be found in the Constitution.  In fact, the only place in the Constitution that infers a right to privacy are in the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments.  In these amendments “the people” or the accused have the right for the government to not illegally search or seize, to be deprived of liberty without due process, and the right to a public and speedy trial free from inducement during “trial like confrontations”.  There is also some mention of the right to privacy in the 3rd amendment during times of peace. 

Nevertheless, the Court in Roe held that during the first trimester, the mother’s doctor had the right to terminate the fetus.  During the second trimester, the mother’s doctor had the right to terminate the fetus if the mother’s health outweighed the health of the fetus.  During the third trimester, the state’s interest in the baby prevailed and could only be terminated if there was a substantial risk for the mother’s health.  This right to privacy was “borrowed” from Griswold v. Connecticut under the cloak of substantive due process

However in 1992, the opinion in Roe was “reinterpreted” in Casey v. Planned Parenthood of PA.  In this case the Court did away with the trimester system completely.  The Court opined that the right to privacy was bogus, and the Roe court really wanted to say there was a right to choose.  The government may infringe upon the women’s right to choose unless there is an undue burden on the mother’s right.

Obama, and the majority of pro-death pro-choice advocates, still don’t understand that abortion is no longer a privacy issue.  It kills me to think that he, a Harvard law grad, either doesn’t understand the issue or he doesn’t acknowledge that the right to privacy is a bogus concept.  To tell you the truth, the right to choose is not a right endowed by the Constitution, but don’t get me started.

There will be some Supreme Court Justices who resign in the next 4 years.  We cannot allow Obama, and a Democratic majority in both houses, to appoint and sustain Judges who look beyond the framer’s intent.  Nor can we allow Judges to create law from the bench by creating substantive due process rights.  This is an important issue and I wish the GOP would have begun hammering this issue a year ago.  I hope not all is lost.



Palin Goes After Obama on Abortion

October 12, 2008

Dan Nephin of the AP reports:


Palin said she and Republican presidential candidate John McCain would be “defenders of the culture of life.” She opposes abortion in all cases except where the pregnancy threatens the woman’s life.

Alaska’s governor also touched upon common campaign themes during her speech to about 5,000 supporters in Johnstown, but she focused on children with special needs and then abortion. Palin, whose infant son, Trig, has Down syndrome, said she and McCain would make protecting such children a priority.

“Every child has something to contribute … if we give them that chance,” she said.


Palin called Obama’s ideas and votes on abortion “radical.”

“In short, Sen. Obama is a politician who has long since left behind even the middle ground on the issue of life. He’s fighting with those who won’t protect a child born alive,” she said.

“A vote for Barack Obama is a vote for activist courts that will continue to smother the open and democratic debate that we deserve and that we need on this issue of life – that’s OK, that debate – at both the state and federal level,” she said.

I love Palin so much. She needs to keep bringing up this issue.  A debate is necessary on the issue of abortion and it should be at the state level. The Roe v. Wade court improperly made this into a federal issue and while we have made significant inroads since then, with the help of Jane Roe among others.


Los Angeles National Organization of Women President Endorses Palin

October 5, 2008


Shelly Mandell, President of NOW LA endorses Palin!  

“America, this is what a FEMINIST looks like!”

“There’s a place in Hell reserved for women who don’t support other women.”


Just Shelly Mandell, not LA’s NOW


Hillaryorbust and Gretawire report that this may cause a domino effect:

I am hearing rumblings…apparently the endorsement of Governor Palin (and Senator McCain) by LA’s President of NOW Shelly Mandel is making it ’safe’ for other high profile feminists to endorse McCain/Palin. The thinking is twofold – one; that it is time for a woman and two; that Governor Palin wants to work across party lines… This is a giant change in politics…
What do you think about this?

This is so important. I have spoken to quite a few Democratic women who are upset about Obama and don’t like him, but feel guilty voting Republican. With women like Mandell supporting Palin, it gives permission and a reason for many disaffected female Democrats to vote for the McCain/Palin ticket.

This is important for women seeking equal opportunity in the workplace and so many other aspects that women have been fighting for for so long.  Remember, abolition of Roe v. Wade does NOT make abortion illegal as so many liberals would like you to believe. Abolition of Roe makes abortion a state issue as it was before Roe. No state in the union will illegalize abortion inasmuch as it applies to a mother’s health and rape.


Yes we are slow today, but you would be also

October 3, 2008

So let’s start the ball rolling.

Here is Case Western Law Professor Jonathan Adler’s take on the VP candidate’s Constitutional leanings. Mind you, the candidate that doesn’t shoot moose claims to be a Constitutional law professor although he finished near the bottom of his Syracuse Law School class. 

Here is Professor Adler from Volokh:

I am puzzled by a few things about the Sarah Palin’s and Joseph Biden’s responses to Katie Couric’s questions about Roe v. Wade and federalism.

I found it odd that Palin could not name another Supreme Court decision with which she disagreed. After all, we know that she is aware of at least one Supreme Court decision other than Roe v. Wade with which she disagrees. Just over a month ago she criticized the Supreme Court’s decision in the Exxon Valdez case, slashing the punitive damages awarded by the trial court. So did she simply freeze up and forget? Was she afraid of a ‘gotcha’ comeback if she named a specific case? Or is she that much of a knucklehead that she can’t even remember what she thought of the Court several weeks ago? My read of the video is that the first is most likely, but I’m sure others will disagree.

Biden, the constitutional law scholar and former Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, spoke more smoothly and authoritatively on the issue. Yet while his defense of Roe may have sounded thoughtful at a superficial level, it was actually quite incoherent. Instead of saying that he thinks the abortion right is a fundamental liberty that deserves constitutional protection — which he only hinted at later, and would be a more straightforward way to defend Roe and an abortion right under the Constitution — Biden explained that the Court’s decision is “as close to a consensus that can exist in a society as heterogeneous as ours.” Setting aside his focus on Roe, and his description of Roe‘s initial holding as if it were still the law of the land and had not been supplanted by Casey‘s “undue burden” test, his rationale is problematic on several levels, particularly for someone who holds himself out as an expert on constitutional law.

First, if the aim is a rule that embodies or approximates a national “consensus” on an issue, there is no reason to believe that the imposition of a uniform constitutional mandate by the Supreme Court is more likely to embody such a consensus than will the action of the legislature. Not only is the Court less responsive to popular opinion than the legislature, Supreme Court decisions are also more difficult to change than statutory enactments. Thus, even if a the Court gets it right at a given point in time, it is exceedingly unlikely that the Court’s unaltered judgment will reflect a social consensus over time. If, as Biden claims, the aim is to embody or approximate the social consensus, one has to take into account the fact that popular opinion shifts, but Roe does not.

Second, if the aim is to have abortion laws that come as close as possible to embodying public values and preferences, any nationally uniform rule, whether permissive or restrictive, is less optimal than leaving the matter to the separate states. Allowing individual states to adopt their own rules will result in a greater percentage of the public living within a jurisdiction that imposes abortion rules with which they agree. To illustrate, consider a hypothetical nation with two states of equal populations. The national preference in favor of permissive abortion rules is 60% to 40%. But in State A the preference for permissive rules is 75% to 25% and in State B the preference for more restrictive abortion rules runs 55% to 45%. With a national rule reflecting popular opinion, 60% of the people live under a rule they support. Allowing each state to adopt its own rules, however, results, in 65% of the people ((75+55)/2) living under a rule they support. So, if the aim is a set of rules that reflects “consensus” within a heterogeneous society — and this is the premise that Biden himself provided in the interview — then the federalist approach is superior to a national rule, such as that embodied in Roe (or, for that matter, a national rule embodied in a constitutional amendment, such as the proposed “Right-to-Life Amendment.”)

My point is not that Biden is wrong to defend Roe. It may be difficult to defend the reasoning of Justice Blackmun’s opinion, but reasonable people can and do disagree over whether the Constitution should be read to protect an abortion right, as well as on the question of whether Roe should be upheld on precedential grounds. Rather my point is to show that the basis upon which Biden chose to defend Roe — the desire to approximate “consensus” in a heterogeneous society — cannot justify the outcome he seeks to defend, and reflects a poor understanding of our constitutional system (particularly for someone of his background). While Biden speaks about these issues with in an authoritative manner, and has substantial experience discussing and debating constitutional questions, the substance was sorely lacking in this interview.

UPDATE: Brian Kalt has more thoughts on the interviews here. His conclusion:

I would have been much happier if Palin had given better answers to Couric. But her lack of knowledge of constitutional law would assumedly lead her to rely on others for advice on such matters. She doesn’t know, but surely she realizes it. Biden, by contrast, has the smooth confidence of someone who has been immersed in these issues for decades. But he’s wrong. To me, that’s actually scarier.