Who is my Presidential candidate

A classmate asked me who I would support for President, and I replied that I was supporting Dr. Ron Paul. Then the classmate, claiming that Ron Paul was a lost cause, asked me whom I'd support if the good Doctor was out of the race.

To which I replied that I would vote for a retarded goat, so long is it wasn't a Democrat or a Republican.

Have a nice day.

A former NYRTLP candidate moves to Philadelphia and loses his way

The media likes odd-couple stories, and the Philadelphia City Paper has found a doozy.

In a front-page article of January 29, City Paper reporter Doron Taussig profiles two old men who have formed an unusual friendship. John Dunkle, a retired schoolteacher, is a pro-life Catholic who demonstrates in front of abortion clinics in the City of Brotherly Love. Erich Schmitt is, in the author's so-clever phrase, "a recovering alcoholic and a recovering Catholic" who escorts mothers into the local abortuary to "protect" them against the protesters. It was in these inauspicious circumstances that Dunkle and Schmitt met and formed an acquaintance that ripened into respect and friendship.

The article is certainly interesting, but there's one aspect of the article that I will focus on. Dunkle used to live in New York, where he was in the RTLP:

"In 1976, the New York State Right to Life party recruited him to run for office; for the next 20 years he ran frequently, often against Republican Congressman Norman Lent. His campaigns were minimalist. A week before every election, there would be a debate on local TV. John would show up, wait for a question, and then, no matter what was asked, say something like: 'I'm a one-issue candidate. I want to protect the lives of unborn children.'"

In Pennsylvania, Dunkle was frustrated by the inability to save children through merely political action. He has involved himself in nonviolent-direct-action activities, like those of the civil rights era, but instead of sitting in at abortion clinics demanding service, he obstructed the clinics so that the abortions would be blocked. According to the article, the passage of the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act put a stop to the local direct-action tactics.

Dunkle is described as being sympathetic to anti-abortion terrorists, even saying that he'd be a terrorist himself if he had the guts. He also harassed one of the abortion providers, earning a federal injunction.

Dunkle is clearly wrong about the desirabilityof anti-abortion terrorism. Violence against abortionists and their facilities involves the terrorist in a confrontation with the federal government - in other words, anti-abortion terrorism is an insurrectionary act. Insurrectionary acts are only justified in rare circumstances. Such circumstances do not exist in the United States: With political channels open to Americans to express their grievances, the excuse for insurrection is negated.

It is in the interest of the pro-abortionists to channel the energies of pro-lifers into lawlessness and terrorism. That will allow the pro-aborts to unleash the instruments of official repression against the pro-life movement. Therefore it is imperative not to play into the hands of the pro-aborts and give them the pretext they seek.

Dunkle's old party, the Right to Life Party, has the right idea: Fight abortion ruthlessly in the political arena. Keeping the RTLP off the ballot is the pro-aborts' way of saying that they reject the legitimacy of pro-lifers being in politics (the Roe decision also does this, of course, by declaring pro-life laws to be "unconstitutional"). The pro-aborts are most comfortable with pro-life people operating outside the law, which (in the pro-abort perspective) is where pro-lifers belong anyway.

Like father, unlike son

King David had his Absalom, King Solomon had his Rehoboam, and Robert D. McKeon, one of founders of the Right to Life Party, has his Mike.

The Journal News of Westchester County reports on three advisors to Presidential candidates - all of whom got their start in Yonkers. One of the people profiled is "Mike McKeon, the often pugnacious communications adviser to now-former candidate Rudy Giuliani."

The article describes how Mike McKeon's Yonkers upbringing prepared him for politics:

"'Yonkers politics can definitely be rough-and-tumble, and you definitely have to hold your own to survive,' said McKeon, who was also raised in Crestwood.

"McKeon, 44, said his early knowledge of city politics came from his father, who was a founder of the Right to Life Party in New York.

"'There were any number of weekends where I was walking the streets of Yonkers where he was collecting signatures for petitions,' McKeon recalled. 'Politics was just something I was interested in from an early age.'"

And now Mike McKeon just finished a job working for a political candidate who not only supports legalized abortion, but wants taxpayers to be forced to pay for it. How sharper than a serpent's tooth . . .

The New York Times reported on the elder McKeon back in 1997:

"Robert D. McKeon, chairman of the Right to Life Party in Westchester, said that he, too, could never stop fighting, even if his party is successful in outlawing [partial-birth abortion]. 'As long as abortion is legal, it's never going to be over,' Mr. McKeon said. 'Even if we get to the Supreme Court, and the court reverses itself, it will never cease, because we'll always have to be vigilant.'''

Top 10 Reasons why Roe v. Wade is wrong (posted in the internal Web site for my Constitutional Law class, which dealt with Roe today)

Reason #10: Roe v. Wade is judicial legislation

"While the Court's opinion quotes from the dissent of Mr. Justice Holmes in Lochner v. New York . . . the result it reaches is more closely attuned to the majority opinion of Mr. Justice Peckham in that case. . . . To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment."

-Justice William Rehnquist's dissent in Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113, 174 (1973)

"I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but in my view its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court."

-Justice Byron White's dissent in Roe's companion case of Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 221-222 (1973)

Reason #9: The "Jane Roe" of Roe v. Wade admits "I was wrong"

"I had to face up to the awful reality. Abortion was not about 'products of conception.' It was not about 'missed periods.' It was about children being killed in their mothers' wombs.

"All those years, I was wrong. Signing that affidavit [in the Roe v. Wade lawsuit], I was wrong. Working in an abortion clinic, I was wrong. No more of this first-trimester, second-trimester, third-trimester stuff. Abortion – at any point – was wrong. It was so clear. Painfully clear."

Norma McCorvey, Won By Love: Norma McCorvey, the Roe of Roe v. Wade, Speaks Out for the Unborn as She Shares Her New Conviction for Life, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1997, p. 195.

(Note that the "Doe" of Doe v. Bolton, the companion case to Roe, also denounces the decision given in her name).

Reason #8: Martin Luther King's daughter notes that abortion is contrary to what her father fought and died for

"Oh, God, what would Martin Luther King, Jr., who dreamed of having his children judged by the content of their characters do if he'd lived to see the contents of thousands of children's skulls emptied into the bottomless caverns of the abortionists pits?"

– Dr. Alveda King

Reason #7: Legalized abortion is the negation of liberty

"Today, we are seeing a piecemeal destruction of individual freedom. And in abortion, the statists have found a most effective method of obliterating freedom: obliterating the individual. Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the 'right' of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the 'property rights' of slave masters in their slaves."

– "Being Pro-Life is necessary to defend liberty," by Conressman Ron Paul (R-Tx), Libertarian Party Presidential candidate in 1988, current Presidential candidate, and obstetrician, 1981.

Reason #6: Abortion is sexist and misogynist

"Sweeter even than to have had the joy of caring for children of my own has it been to me to help bring about a better state of things for mothers generally, so their unborn little ones could not be willed away from them."

-Susan B. Anthony, pioneer feminist leader.

Reason #5: If you support abortion, people who are alive because of anti-abortion laws might take it personally

"Have you ever considered how really insulting it is to say to someone, 'I think your mother should have been able to abort you.'? It's like saying, 'If I had my way, you'd be dead right now.' And that is the reality with which I live every time someone says they are pro-choice or pro-life 'except in cases of rape' because I absolutely would have been aborted if it had been legal in Michigan when I was an unborn child, and I can tell you that it hurts. But I know that most people don't put a face to this issue -- abortion is just a concept -- with a quick cliche, they sweep it under the rug and forget about it. I do hope that, as a child conceived in rape, I can help to put a face and a voice to this issue."

-Rebecca Kiessling, a prolife attorney who was conceived in rape

Reason #4: Abortion kills millions of black babies

- As illustrated in the table at this site.

Reason #3: Legalized abortion leads to the mass murder of handicapped babies

"Whenever I am out with [my daughter] Margaret, I'm conscious that she represents a group whose ranks are shrinking because of the wide availability of prenatal testing and abortion. I don't know how many pregnancies are terminated because of prenatal diagnoses of Down syndrome, but some studies estimate 80 to 90 percent. . . .

"In ancient Greece, babies with disabilities were left out in the elements to die. We in America rely on prenatal genetic testing to make our selections in private, but the effect on society is the same.

"Margaret's old pediatrician tells me that years ago he used to have a steady stream of patients with Down syndrome. Not anymore. Where did they go, I wonder. On the west side of L.A., they aren't being born anymore, he says. . . .

"What I don't understand is how we as a society can tacitly write off a whole group of people as having no value. . . ."

-Patricia E. Bauer, "The Abortion Debate No One Wants to have," Washington Post, October 18, 2005.

Reason #2: Even in a medical diagram, it looks bad

Reason #1: Baby Malachi

ACOG in the machinery of death

Here's an edited version of an email I sent to a prominent supporter of conscientious-objector rights for soldiers. This person fights hard to make sure that soldiers who develop conscientious scruples about killing people in war (either war in general or a particular war) won't get punished for standing up for their principles. I'm hoping that this will be extended to protecting the conscientious scruples of doctors who don't want to kill babies. It's really too bad that doctors who don't want to kill should have to seek some kind of conscientious objector exemption, but such is the corruption of the culture.

A report by the Ethics committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, published last year, urges new laws and regulations restricting the freedom of conscience of those pro-life doctors who don't want to cooperate with abortion. I thought I'd send you this report and a rebuttal by various pro-life groups, as illustrative of a key issue of conscientious objection to war and violence. Of course, I assume you've read this stuff already, but I'm including my own humble commentary for what it may be worth.

(Note: The report applies to all "reproductive health" services, including abortion, contraception, sterilization, and IVF. I'm focusing on the report so far as it applies to abortion.)

The issue is discussed on the Web page of the Christian Medical and Dental Association.

I suppose I would be pretty much "preaching to the choir" to say that conscientious objection to war and violence ought to get special respect from the government. The ACOG committee doesn't seem to get it. They don't acknowledge the special status of conscientious objection in the abortion context, appearing to regard conscientious objection to abortion as equivalent to objection to a nonlethal medical operation.

Here are some problematic aspects of the ACOG committee report. Some of these problems will probably be familiar to you from your dealings with the US military.

Rejection of certain conscientious beliefs as too "odd or absurd" - or otherwise unjustified - to warrant recognition

For one thing, the report suggests that only certain kinds of conscientious beliefs are valid. Thus, there are pro-life doctors who are not only opposed to performing abortions themselves, but who don't want to refer patients for abortions elsewhere. The closest military analogy would be ordering a conscientious objector to either join the military or hire a substitute to fight in his place, a feature of the old militia laws, and of the Civil War draft. Many military conscientious objectors refused to hire substitutes, considering this to be just as warlike an act as serving themselves. Similiarly, many prolife physicians believe that referring a woman for an abortion is just as wrong as doing the abortion directly.

The ACOG committee report suggests that, because it is "odd or absurd" for pro-life doctors not to make abortion referrals, therefore their claims of conscience are illegitimate. ACOG undertakes to tell conscientious objectors what they ought to believe, and if a pro-life physician doesn't conform to the ACOG committee's narrow view of what COs should think and believe, then they shouldn't enjoy the full rights of conscience.

Another instance of the ACOG committee's attitude is its dogmatic insistence that all doctors must hold a certain view of the fetus. Specifically, the committee thinks all physicians must regard the fetus' humanity as being sufficiently dubious that it has no rights - at least, no rights which its mother is bound to respect. The "well-being" of the mother must take priority over the fetus at all times, even if that means killing the fetus in order to preserve the (broadly-defined) mental health of a physically-healthy mother.

Prolife doctors who sincerely and conscientiously believe that the fetus is a human being, with the rights of a human being, are simply dismissed. Not only are these doctors wrong, says the ACOG committee, but they are simply not entitled to any respect for their conscientious beliefs about the humanity of the fetus. Even though the committee acknowledges that there are diverse views about fetuses and their status, prolife doctors must act as if only the ACOG committee's views are the correct ones.

The ACOG committee also indicates that respecting the consciences of prolife doctors would "create or reinforce racial or socioecomic inequalities in society" by limiting the availability of the "benefits of reproductive technology." Prolife people, in contrast, sincerely regard abortion, not the denial of abortion, as the true threat to racial minorities and the socially marginal (for an eloquent defense of this perspective, see http://blackgenocide.org/home.html and http://www.klannedparenthood.com/).

Nonetheless, to promote social and racial equality, the ACOG committee actually wants to discourage prolife doctors from practicing in "resource-poor areas," if they are unwilling to do abortion referrals, unless the pro-life doctors are able to practice "in proximity" to pro-abortion doctors. By definition, of course, the more "resource-poor" an area is, the less likely that there will be multiple doctors in "close proximity" to each other. What if a conscientious prolife doctor wants to set up a free primary care clinic in a "resource-poor" area, but doesn't want to do abortion referrals for his patients? If the committee gets its way, that "resource-poor" area must be denied the doctor's services altogether. Wouldn't that tend to "create or reinforce racial or socioecomic inequalities in society"?

As the pro-life rebuttal to the ACOG committee says:

"ACOG's misguided and uninformed public statement on conscience limits is bound to have the effect, whether unintended or actually intended, of discouraging persons of faith from practicing or choosing obstetrics and gynecology as a profession. At a time when many communities are already suffering the loss of obstetricians and gynecologists forced out of their practices for economic reasons, it seems especially unwise to send such a message of ideological intolerance and religious discrimination."

Using a strictly individualistic definition of conscience,

The ACOG committee suggests that opposition to abortion, even in sincere and conscientious form, is basically a personal hangup. The fact is that conscientious objection to abortion is a perfectly respectable phenomenon with a strong history of support by physicians.

The report invokes the specter of physicians who refuse to perform abortions simply because they're afraid of criticism from pro-lifers. Such physicians would be insincere if they claimed conscientious scruples againt abortion, the ACOG committee asserts.

This skeptical attitude could well pose a problem for physicians whose opposition to abortion stems from their membership in a church which opposes abortion. A prolife doctor claiming conscientious objector status could be met with the answer that, because of his membership in a prolife church, he's not really against abortion, but simply trying to please the leadership of that church, and his fellow worshippers. That would be like the military showing skepticism toward members of the traditional peace churches because the soldier is basing his CO claim on his church's teachings, not on his own individual reflection.

The ACOG committee's definition of conscience focuses on individualism. According to the committee's definition, conscience means that if a person does a certain thing against his conscience, he won't be able to live with himself, he will hate himself, or he won't be able to sleep at night.

Where, in this definition, can we fit in the physician who bases his opposition to abortion on the fact that his church has teachings against abortion which (s)he (the physician) regards as normative? Once the physician can prove that, why require anything more?

Imagine if the military decided that it isn't enough for a soldier to belong to, and sincerely believe in, the teachings of, a traditional peace church. "That's as may be, but we decide that you could violate your church's teachings without suffering excessive anguish, so your conscientious beliefs don't count!"

As the pro-life protest says:

"By caricaturing conscience as a pitifully self-centered, subjective feeling, ACOG denigrates the objective sources of conviction. Physicians of faith base decisions of conscience not on personal whims and feelings but on the objective teachings of Scripture--the same Scriptures that have provided the foundation for the laws of much of civilization. A physician's conscience may also be informed by time-honored ethical standards such as the Hippocratic Oath, which for centuries provided a foundation for medical ethics until abortion advocacy censored its teachings."

Selective, one-sided focus on patient autonomy in order to justify abridgement of the freedom of pro-life doctors

So long as we're testing people's sincerity: When a group of doctors starts pushing for patient autonomy, one is entitled to suspect the doctors' sincerity, especially since these doctors are not otherwise known for their defense of patient autonomy. (Not to mention the ACOG committee's apparent lack of sincerity in denouncing racial and social inequality while seeking to discourage conscientious prolife doctors from serving "resource-poor areas" where other doctors aren't available).

As the prolife protest says: "Since ACOG has gone to court to fight laws requiring abortion doctors to offer informed consent information to patients on the risks and alternatives to abortion, clearly ACOG intends to selectively apply [its proposed informed-consent] requirement only to pro-life physicians to force them to offer abortion as an option."

Here's a challenge to ACOG to test their commitment to patient autonomy: In some medical malpractice cases, a patient says she would have never consented to a given medical procedure if the doctor had warned her of the risks. Many courts say that if a hypothetical "reasonable patient" would have gone ahead with the procedure anyway, then it makes no difference whether the particular patient would have done so - the doctor wins the case.

Unless ACOG has filed a protest against this autonomy-minimizing rule - and I'm not aware of such a protest being filed - then we should regard its newfound conversion to patient autonomy as purely tactical, not sincere.

And need I even mention that the people supporting such denials of conscientious objectors' rights are not exactly "pro-choice"?

Right to Life Party gets props from National Public Radio . . . a sign of the Apocalypse?

The reference is very fleeting, but it's there nevertheless.

You need to scroll down in this article to get to it. It's in Ken Rudin's "Political Junkie" column dated January 24. Here's the relevant part, discussing the Democratic primary duel between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama:

"Still, unless something completely unexpected happens, one of them — a woman, or a black man — is going to be the nominee of a major political party.

"I just read that last sentence back to myself, and wow, that's pretty remarkable stuff. One thing to remember, however: Other political parties got there first. It's never happened before with either the Democrats or the Republicans. But not so of the minor, so-called 'third' parties. What follows is a somewhat complete list of female and African-American presidential nominees of such parties over the years. (Send me additions and I will amend in subsequent columns.)

"WOMEN: Victoria Woodhull (Equal Rights Party, 1872); Belva Lockwood (Equal Rights Party, 1884 and 1888); Charlene Mitchell (Communist Party, 1968); Linda Jenness (Socialist Workers Party, 1972); Margaret Wright (People's Party, 1976); Deirdre Griswold (Workers World Party, 1980) . . ."

and then, there it is:

"Ellen McCormack (Right to Life Party, 1980)"

Yes, that's right - NPR deems a candidate of the Right to Life Party to be worthy of being listed alongside such worthies as Victoria Woodhull.

Of course, the reader would never know from this article that the Right to Life Party, unlike Victoria Woodhull, is still alive and seeking votes. And NPR's search engine indicates that this is the only mention of the RTLP since 1996.

Oh, well, you can't insist on the media going overboard in noticing the RTLP, can you?

Oh, here's a surprise: A doctor who is capable of killing babies is capable of lying, too

This video provided by the group Students for Life shows an abortion doctor boasting about how he lies to boyfriends to keep them from seeing their girlfriends' abortions. It seems the boyfriends get upset when they get such direct observation of their own children being murdered. So the doctor admits he lies to keep these guys from seeing the "procedure."