Posts Tagged ‘Abortion’

« Older Entries

Sanford and Ensign Should be Put to Death

Thursday, June 25th, 2009

According to “God’s Law.”

During Republican South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford’s teary apology to his state, his family, his mistress, and others, he repeatedly made reference to “God’s Law.” In this case, he craftily manipulated the definition to be about self-control rather than an actual serious punishment.

But I’m here because if you were to look at God’s laws, in every instance it is designed to protect people from themselves. I think that that is the bottom line of God’s law. It is not a moral, rigid list of do’s and don’ts just for the heck of do’s and dont’s, it is indeed to protect us from ourselves. And the biggest self of self is indeed self. If sin is in fact grounded in this notion of what is it that I want, as opposed to somebody else.1

I wonder which of God’s laws Sanford was referencing here. Could it be one of the Ten Commandments? Could it be, depending on your denominational choice, Exodus 20:14? “You shall not commit adultery.” Know what’s excruciatingly difficult to find on Judeo-Christian websites? The prescribed consequences for violating “God’s Law.”

So addicted to the testament of the commandments are these hypocritical politicians that they’re willing to violate the First Amendment by signing bills to put them on display at public buildings, as Mark Sanford signed last year. But despite all the devotion to those laws, they ignore God’s prescribed consequences. Sanford says they’re designed to protect people from themselves, but I fear that Sanford must have missed that bible study lesson.

According to God’s law, the law that Sanford adopts so openly, Sanford should be put to death. So says Leviticus 20:10:

And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Or, is that open to interpretation? How dare we, as a society, as the governed, allow men like Sanford and Ensign, another hypocritical adulterer, to openly condemn homosexuality and other behavior they deem immoral based on God’s law if, when they are confronted with violations of that very same set of laws, we give them a round of applause?

Sanford, you want to display the Ten Commandments on public grounds? Fine. We’ll compromise. You can do that if, on those very same public grounds, you stand there, unprotected, surrounded by stones, allowing the public to choose whether you’re subject to God’s Law as you subject others to your interpretation of it.

—

Mark Sanford:2

-Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
-Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
-No civil unions; define one-man-one-woman marriage. (Nov 2002)
-Affirmative action in state contracts, but not colleges. (Nov 2002)
-Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
-Voted NO on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)
-Voted NO on maintaining right of habeas corpus in Death Penalty Appeals. (Mar 1996)
-Voted YES on making federal death penalty appeals harder. (Feb 1995)
-More prisons, more enforcement, effective death penalty. (Sep 1994)
-Voted YES on prohibiting needle exchange & medical marijuana in DC. (Oct 1999)
-Use tax code to reinforce families. (Sep 1994)

John Ensign:

-Voted YES on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
-Voted YES on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
-Voted YES on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
-Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
-Voted YES on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
-Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
-Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
-Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
-Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
-Rated 100% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-life stance. (Dec 2006)
-Prohibit transporting minors across state lines for abortion. (Jan 2008)
-Voted YES on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
-Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
-Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
-Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
-Voted YES on ending the set-aside of 10% of highway funds for minorities. (Apr 1998)
-Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
-Rated 20% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
-Rated 11% by the HRC, indicating an anti-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
-Rated 7% by the NAACP, indicating an anti-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)
-Voted NO on reinstating $1.15 billion funding for the COPS Program. (Mar 2007)
-Voted NO on allowing Habeus Corpus appeals in capital cases. (Mar 1996)
-Voted NO on maintaining right of habeas corpus in Death Penalty Appeals. (Mar 1996)
-Voted YES on making federal death penalty appeals harder. (Feb 1995)
-More funding and stricter sentencing for hate crimes. (Apr 2001)
-More prisons, more enforcement, effective death penalty. (Sep 1994)
-Rated 100% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record. (Dec 2003)
-Permanent crime database for volunteers with kids. (Jul 2008)
-Use tax code to reinforce families. (Sep 1994)
-Rated 0% by the AU, indicating opposition to church-state separation. (Dec 2006)

In 1998, after President Bill Clinton admitted to having committed adultery with Monica Lewinsky, Ensign called on him to resign, saying, “He has no credibility left.”

In 2004, Ensign spoke on the Senate floor in favor of the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have barred states from recognizing same-sex marriage. Ensign said:

Marriage is the cornerstone on which our society was founded. For those who say that the Constitution is so sacred that we cannot or should not adopt the Federal Marriage Amendment, I would simply point out that marriage, and the sanctity of that institution, predates the American Constitution and the founding of our nation.

Ensign considers himself pro-life and both the National Right to Life Committee and NARAL Pro-Choice America identify him as having a pro-life voting record.

Ensign authored the Child Custody Protection Act in 2003 that prohibits taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions.3

—

Note: I do not follow God’s law. Therefore, I do not think Sanford and Ensign should be put to death. I am not advocating in this article that they should be, and I’m not suggesting that anyone go about making it happen (unless Sanford and Ensign are volunteering to manifest God’s will). As a matter of fact, I don’t think anyone should be put to death. I am merely trying to hold these men accountable for not only their actions, but also their stance with regard to their application of their set of beliefs upon the makings and enforcement of law in their position as representatives of the people.

  1. Transcript excerpt from WIS10. [<]
  2. From On the Issues [<]
  3. Wikipedia [<]

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Atheism, Government, Morality, Religion, Sexuality | 4 Comments »

Dear murderer,

Sunday, May 31st, 2009

To the murderer of Dr. George Tiller,

It is evident that you are taking lessons from the good book, what with all of the murder and slavery and what not.

Oh, and I sincerely hope that you saved a gay, pro-choice, atheist fetus.  The right to reproduce with my uterus is mine.  Mine, all mine.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Atheism, Law, Morality, Religion | 8 Comments »

Sean Tevis is Back

Wednesday, May 13th, 2009

Back in July, 2008, I alerted State of Protest readers to the novel way Kansas resident Sean Tevis used the Internet as a political campaign tool in order to make an incredible attempt to oust the obsolete incumbent Arlen Siegfreid, a Kansas state representative, a right-wing conservative who is anti-abortion, pro-censorship, anti-same-sex marriage, pro-surveillance, and pro-creationism (in public schools). Regardless of the fact that the outcome was not in Tevis’ favor, he created an historic moment for the record number of donors he acquired as well as the uniqueness of his technologically progressive approach.

Simon Owens, at Bloggasm, brings to our attention that Tevis is at it again this year, announcing his plan to run in 2010.

So in Tevis’ new plan, he would visit a minimum of 50 politicians across the state and US to not only share the information he gathered from his constituents, but also to promote his own ideas for transparency in government.

Take a look at the Bloggasm article, which reviews Tevis’ past and future campaigns, and then head over to Tevis’ site and see what he’s been up to.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Activism, Government | 1 Comment »

What About the Birth-Mother? – “It’s about goddamn time.”

Friday, March 20th, 2009

[I]f we’re going to have a seemingly neverending discussion about the sorrow and remorse caused by abortion, then it is about goddamn time that we hear from birth mothers too.

If that got your attention, and I hope it did, then you should read one of the best articles I’ve read this year, Breaking the Silence: On Living Pro-Lifers’ Choice for Women, at Shakesville.

I cannot do it enough justice by talking about it here. It’s both a story and a plea from a woman who has endured an abortion as well as given up a child for adoption. Her writing brings to light an issue I’ve never before heard discussed — why is so much attention and care paid to post-abortive women while apparently absolutely no real attention is paid to post-adoptive mothers? If you’re an advocate for women’s rights, or you’re just curious or pissed off about the abortion debate, this is a uniquely informative must-read article.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Activism, Atheism, Morality, Religion, Sexuality | 2 Comments »

Anti-Contraception Republicans = Anti-Stimulus Votes

Thursday, January 29th, 2009

Republicans, backed by the Christian right, have made it clear that they oppose the pro-contraception provisions in the stimulus package that allow states to cover family planning services and supplies to low-income women who are not otherwise eligible for Medicaid, and give states the option to provide such coverage without obtaining a waiver. 1

Apparently, the “Christian Defense Coalition calls Speaker Pelosi’s decision to add contraceptives to the economic stimulus package bigoted, racist, elitist and anti-child.”2 And that “The Christian Defense Coalition will do all within its power to see that hundreds of millions of dollars are not used for contraceptives.”

Eugene, at the Daily KOS, thinks that this is a battle Democrats need to insist on winning for three primary reasons:
1. Contraception, because it reduces unwanted pregnancies, is essentially economic stimulus.
2. This is an attempt by the conservatives to destroy the Obama administration early on, and if Obama gives in, it’s a major victory for Republicans.
3. This is not only a conservative effort to attack abortion rights indirectly, but also primarily attacks contraception and the right to privacy, which effectively keeps pushing this nation’s reproductive freedom and progress back decades to when contraception was illegal. 3

On the other hand, Benintn, at Daily KOS, thinks that instead of toiling over what amounts to a tiny amount of federal funding (0.24% of the total stimulus package, according to Benintn), efforts should be redirected to reproductive freedom in the arena where it has a good chance of success — donations to Planned Parenthood, for starters.

Benintn suggests that citizens focus on organizing in communities to discuss the impotence of Republicans, focus on private-sector efforts to provide family planning funds (donations to Planned Parenthood, for example), and focusing on stabilizing and improving state and local health departments. Rather than merely handing out condoms, says Benintn, “let’s invest in sex education and counseling that helps empower people.” 4

Benintn also refers to a potentially disturbing set of facts laid out by TPM, that Democrats were not always the front-runners for family planning rights, and that the provisions of the bill allowing state waivers are cumbersome, at best. Not only that, but many states already supply Medicaid money for family planning, and Republicans from those states opposed the stimulus bill’s family planning provisions as being pro-abortion, but apparently have not tried to get the already-existing funding in their own states nixed (which makes me think that this behavior may be more in line with what Eugene suggested, being an attempt to undermine Obama’s administration from the start). 5

Regardless of whether you favor Benintn’s or Eugene’s view, there’s no harm in donating to an organization like Planned Parenthood and working for better family planning and sex education in local and state-level communities. As far as the lack of impact of the provision in question with regard to the total stimulus package, I don’t think we should be looking at it as a comparison to the rest of the package, and then allowing ourselves to discount it based on that. I think any federal funding is beneficial, and is also an indication that the federal government doesn’t cave in to right-wing religious extremism. If I were negotiating this deal, and the Republicans tried to insist on dropping the family planning provision, I’d agree on the condition that we drop some much-desired Republican-promoted tax cut, and we’ll see if the Republican legislators are driven more by their alleged fiscal conservatism than their tired religious rhetoric.

This is not just a test for the new administration, but it is also the first in what will be many tests of whether the Republican Party will continue to exist as is with such a distinction between the fiscal conservatives who don’t mind the concept of separation of church and state and the religious extremists who have a lot of support from religious organizations and who would probably enjoy having Palin in ‘12. During the election, I hypothesized (like many others) that the Republican Party would split along those lines, and that the less extreme, but fiscally and governmentally conservative offshoot would succeed on its own merits (and likely get along much better with the Blue Dog Democrats and other moderates in Congress), while the financially powerful but cultish party of religious extremists would, although potentially powerful in some respects, hopefully go the way of the dodo.

The bill, although passed by the House, is not nearly in its final draft. It’s still under review by the Senate, and will likely endure multiple changes by both before being signed into law by President Obama. In the meantime, Republicans need to start seriously thinking about why they’re loyal to a party that doesn’t practice the core values of conservatism and small government (i.e., are they Bush Republicans?), and whether it’s worth it to continue to exist with the taint of religious and political extremism. And Democrats need to start thinking about why the people voted for a Democratic majority in Congress, and perhaps start getting to doing some of the things we hoped would have been done years ago. Remember, Obama can’t do everything himself, and he’s far from omnipotent or perfect.

Rachel Maddow asks a pertinent question: If Obama’s attempt at bipartisanism ends up with no Republican votes for his stimulus package, and if he can pass the bill without those votes, why make concessions on huge tax cuts or anything else?


Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

State of Protest

  1. http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/26/contraceptives-stimulus/ [<]
  2. http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/common-ground-by-digby-this.html [<]
  3. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/1/27/15421/8732/141/689403 [<]
  4. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/1/27/83637/3605 [<]
  5. TPM [<]

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Government, Religion, Sexuality | 1 Comment »

« Older Entries