Archive for the ‘Supreme Court’ Category

“The Catholic Boom”: some observations

May 25, 2007

David Brooks, writing in the Opinion section on the TimesSelect website (subscription required), argues that the “quasi-religious” have economic and sociological advantages over the truly religious and the truly unreligious.

In making this argument, he seems to insult both Protestants and Catholics even as he praises them for their great financial and educational achievements. You see, quasi-religious people respect history and tradition, and benefit from the stability these afford, but because they are always questioning and dissenting, they don’t get stuck in productivity- and income-quashing ruts.



Majella Society and Michael Reagan

May 12, 2007

majella_adThe Majella Society is a pro-life organization dedicated to making sure women know that when they are faced with a “crisis pregnancy” they have options other than abortion. It’s ironic that many women don’t know there are any alternatives to abortion until a so-called “anti-choice” organization tells them. This image shows the end of one of Majella’s TV ads, with their hotline number: 1-800-395-HELP. They also run billboards and radio ads. You can watch their ads online at their website, or by following this link to a YouTube search.

They held their third annual fundraiser banquet this past Thursday, and I had the good fortune to be invited by a couple who hosted one of the tables. Michael Reagan was the keynote speaker. Norma McCorvey, who in 1973 was the “Jane Roe” of Roe v. Wade, was also in attendance. Last year the speaker was Zell Miller.

I shot a short clip of Reagan’s address, which I have put up at YouTube for all you MR fans. Pardon the non-embedded nature of this video link—for some reason WordPress seems to disallow embedded YouTube videos.

Supreme Court bans infanticide and brain vacuuming

April 18, 2007

Reading how matter-of-factly the Associated Press talks in this article, you’d think the topic was something mundane, like comparing the rainfall on two relatively unrainy days:

The procedure at issue involves partially removing the fetus intact from a woman’s uterus, then crushing or cutting its skull to complete the abortion.

Abortion opponents say the law will not reduce the number of abortions performed because an alternate method — dismembering the fetus in the uterus — is available and, indeed, much more common.

But in the world of partial-birth abortion, crushing babies’ skulls and sucking the brains out with a vacuum IS mundane. Nothing remarkable. And for the description of the procedure, note that it’s a “fetus” being removed from the uterus. I suppose that being only part-way outside the mother means it’s not yet a baby? Does an obstetrician deliver fetuses? If so, when does it become a “baby”? If you ask Barbara Boxer—as Rick Santorum did in 1999, in a chilling exchange that made it clear that Boxer believes that female empowerment mandates giving women the power of life and death over their offspring—Boxer would say that it becomes not only a baby, but a human being with rights “when you bring your baby home.” Read the transcript at the Library of Congress website. Here is an excerpt:

Mr. SANTORUM. But I would like to ask you this question. You agree, once the child is born, separated from the mother, that that child is protected by the Constitution and cannot be killed? Do you agree with that?

Mrs. BOXER. I would make this statement. That this Constitution as it currently is—some want to amend it to say life begins at conception. I think when you bring your baby home, when your baby is born—and there is no such thing as partial-birth—the baby belongs to your family and has the rights. But I am not willing to amend the Constitution to say that a fetus is a person, which I know you would.

Boxer went on to say that not allowing women to kill their babies at the moment when they are seconds from full delivery was going to endanger the women’s life and health. This seems to me downright ludicrous. For there seem to be two reasons why crazy people like Boxer want partial-birth abortion: first, they say that it’s sometimes safer than regular abortion, which involves chopping up the baby’s body in utero, and involves inserting a blade, the creation of sharp bone fragments, and possibly other conditions that could harm the mother. Clearly, this is a bad idea all around, and not just for the baby who’s being cut up. Second, I believe they sometimes claim that PBA is necessary when the baby’s head is too big for the birth canal. But in cases like these, we have the Caesarean section procedure, which avoids scalpels, bone fragments, and the vacuuming of brains, and promotes the continued life of the child.

But back to the news article: Ginsburg called it “alarming” that women will no longer be able to legally vacuum their babies’ brains out at the point of birth. She also said that the decision “‘tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide” the puncturing of infants’ skulls with scissors and the sucking out of their brains, often resulting in decapitation (warning: links to graphic image), “a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.”

Whatever. She and those of like mind are interested in power and radical autonomy, not in protecting the “health” of innocent pregnant women. If they were interested in protecting the innocent, they wouldn’t be pushing for the ongoing legal genocide of the most innocent members of our society.