Human Life at Every Stage of Development - Does ND Value It?

 Next door to the state where I live voters will have on their ballot, this year, the the following article to be added to the North Dakota Constitution:

"The inalienable right to life of every human being at any stage of development must be recognized and protected."

First a few items in the interest of transparency:

•  Both side have claimed major interference from forces outside the state. While I grew up in North Dakota and came to love politics studying its history, I am currently a citizen of a neighboring state so I am one of those "outsiders."
• Both sides claim that significant non-ND funding is driving their opposition. It appears that the Vote No side gets the prize for funds from outside. While my family makes a major contribution to ND taxes (via sale tax)each year, I am in no position to provide any significant funds at this time.
• There have been endless side taking about the well being of those of us at the later stages of human development if this amendment is approved. My age is within months of the life expectancy (77.4, WHO, 2014) for males in the US.
• It has been a long time since I have seen so many ad hominem attacks on Catholics as I have read in recent weeks. I am one of those terrible Catholics.
• One trait I took on during my years in politics was to try to know my opponents' rational for their positions as thoroughly as possible. My initial analysis of this issue (its not just a ND issue) put me on the vote yes side. Thus I have read more editorials, letters and position papers from the vote no side.
• Both sides seem to agree that the origins of this proposal is from proponents of a right to life. This is documented well in any list of declared organizations supporting the measure. I am one of those proponents. The label(s) "pro life" (and  "pro choice") are used by our media as designations of single issue positions. However, most supporters of a right to life see it as a human right of any human in any situation or stage of life, obviously not a single issue position.

The most surprising discovery in reading all those papers, letters and editorials from lawyers and doctors on  the Vote No side, was that many claimed that a "right to life" would result in denying seniors, such as myself,control over their own health care decisions. Now, in my understanding of language, logic and the meaning of rights in political thought, it seems to me to be just the opposite. In other word, it seems to me, a constitutional protection of my right to life would in fact protect my ability to control my own health care. The ability to control, accept or reject, or choose alternatives for health care seems to be an integral part of of my human dignity, my right to life.

My fraternal recommendation to friends and relatives on the other side of the state line is to vote yes on measure one.

March For Life Intro

Cardinal Sean O’Malley’s homily at the Vigil Mass for the March on Life reveals a realistic grasp of the current situation concerning abortion in our country, the transparency of the Church’s position and the love with which we approach those on all sides of the issue. Here is a video from vimeo of that sermon for those that did not have a chance to hear it live.

MLK Day Gems

Today was very busy but two things stand out as shiny gems. Both have to do with our ongoing struggle to assure human rights for all human persons.

Very apropos for Martin Luther King Day was the poetry of Richard Blanco that we were graced to hear during the inauguration at midday.  In addition to the beauty of the poem he read is the fact that he personally symbolizes the great value that immigrants bring to our country. Here is one verse from that poem. View the entire reading by Richard below.

Hear: squeaky playground swings, trains whistling,

 or whispers across cafe tables, Hear: the doors we open
 for each other all day, saying: hello, shalom,
 buon giorno, howdy, paymaster, or buenos días
 in the language my mother taught me -- in every language
 spoken into one wind carrying our lives
 without prejudice, as these words break from my lips.

The second gem, also relevant to the heritage of Dr. King, is the introduction of a new book about the non-violent and prayer filled campaign against the human rights violation of abortion known as ''Forty Days For Lífe'' . The book was introduced to human rights activists on a web presentation this evening. This book will be released on January 28, 2013. I will post a link to purchase it when it is available. 

Why Religion in The Public Square Works

The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution is:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.  "

Structure of this sentence is as follows.

Congress shall make no law (that):

     Item 1,

     Item 2;

     Item 3, 

     Item 4;

     Item 5,

     Item 6 .

Lets fill in the items.

Congress shall make no law (that):

     establishes a religion,

     prohibits the free exercise of religion;

     abridges the freedom of speech,

     abridges the freedom of the press;

     abridges the right to peacefully assemble,

     abridges the right to petition the government.

The ideal specified in the founding declaration that, “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights . . . That to secure these rights, governments, Governments are instituted among men . . .” (DI, 1776) makes it clear that the amendments do not create rights but are intended to 'secure' the identified rights from suppression by the government.

In putting these rights together in one amendment, the writers not only secured these rights for us but also provided an elegant but simple statement of how these rights make it possible for both government and religion to relate in the public square. While government is prohibited from sponsoring or interfering with religion or its citizens living out their faith it also protects those same religious citizens (as well as non believing citizens) right to speak, write, assemble or participate in politics. 

President Obama and Human Rights

Here is a re posting of my August 8, 2008 analysis of Senator Obama's responses when he and Senator McCain were interviewed by Pastor Rick Warren during the 2008 presidential election campaign. Since some of the same issues were under heavy discussion the past few weeks, I went back to check my analysis from that time.

-----------------------------------------------
August 8, 2008
-----------------------------------------------

While John McCain’s performance at the California Church was a definite disappointment the responses of Barach Obama revealed a comprehensive grasp of the dire predicament in which our country finds itself . In particular he excelled in his answers to the questions about evil and economic diversity while McCain was embarrassingly shallow on these these critical issues.

Obama’s Achilles heal is the subject of abortion where his continued acceptance of money and support from the abortion industry lobbyists and PACs is totally contradictory to the positions he so elegantly discussed moments before. In this segment of the interview he seemed to excuse or even regret his denial of rights to babies born alive during an attempted abortion. He offered the excuse that the measure (In Illinois) did not contain a certain amendment.

Fortunate for us the business of the Illinois legislature is a matter of public record. The bill did contain the amendment he described. What is also in the record is his arguments against the bill. Essentially he argued that the lives of such children should not be protected because they would be an embarrassment to the abortionist. While he now says he would support such law an apology would have been more appropriate than the misleading and incorrect excuse he did offer. This glaring inconsistency with the rest of his answers was most disappointing.

Disappointing but not surprising. In his best seller, The Audacity of Hope, he made it clear in his story of his entry to politics that his funding came from the abortion lobby. He revealed this by saying that he could not accept funds from the human rights organization and PAC (lobby) to which I belong. This effectively signaled that he had bought into the conservative view that rights are not inherent to being human but granted by the powerful when and if they choose to do so.

Senator Santorum Wins Big - Then another Stumper

By the time most of you read this you will know that Senator Santorum, my favorite Republican presidential candidate, won two and maybe three of today's caucus states. I just listened to his victory speech and he again restated his belief that the government created our right  to health care and even claims that President Obama agrees with him! If he is right then President Obama is in fact well to the right of the Senator on this issue (which I suspect is the case).

See my research and reading on Senator's position on human rights in the previous posting. I have probably bored you with the story of the courting I received from Republicans following my departure from the Democratic party in the early 1990s. The first issue relates to abortion and the fact that most republicans that approached me were pro abortion. The second most impressive position came from Republicans that claimed to be 'conservative' and their marketing talking point was that government created rights. Sometimes it was couched in terms a strange 'American Exceptionalism' that says that only Americans have human rights because only the America's government has created them.

I think I was always classified as a liberal because I believed that human rights accrue to all human person because they are human and I adhere to a matching religious world view that human are 'endowed by their creator' with such rights. Thus as in the first issue I found it incompatible with my liberal ideals to join with a party that argues against the idea of inherent  or as our founders said, unalienable Rights that preceded any action by government.

Now Senator Santorum did allude to the Declaration and did state that he believes that human rights are from God, a view I share, but then makes a case by attacking the health care reform that we humans in fact have no right to health care. POW! Take that you poor people, here, one more for all the former middle class who who have been denied or lost their health insurance. I suspect that he is only the most articulate of the field which probably holds the same view.

The strangest aspect of the argument he made is that President Obama agrees  with him about creating a right which has the effect of placing the President in a more 'conservative' position than Rick himself since he believes that rights are God given, a clearly more liberal view in my experience. In addition I  suspect his 'conservatism' bars believing in the the phase,  "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."  from the founding document.

If you are getting the idea that I'm really not impressed by the fuzz generated by our politicians this week (read  my last several political postings critical of both Republican and Democratic candidates) you got it right.

Senator Santorum vs Human Rights

If you have been following my commentary on the Republican Primary you are probably right in concluding that Rick Santorum is my favorite. Then the other day I came upon a TV clip of Rick Santorum being interviewed by someone. I couldn’t believe what I heard him say. Before I could determine the full context of the video it was gone. What I found so unsettling was that he appeared to say  that human rights are created by government and that no one has a right to health care.

I spent significant time over the last few days trying to confirm the context of the video or determine what Mr. Santorum’s position was regarding the source of human rights. I read through all likely position papers on his web site and could not determine the answer. I have heard him and other ‘conservatives’ quote from the declaration of Independence the clause that is the core credo of the liberal view of democracy (see footnote).”He even titles one of his issue sections “We hold these truths…”  where he does support some of positions that I do he seems convinced that human rights can be terminated or created by government,. This is not quite what the founders had in mind! 

I Did not find the video but I did come across a written discussion between Rick and Hugh Hewitt (talk show host and Law professor) that did lay it out pretty clearly. Sadly my first impression was right! Here is Rick Santorum scolding the Catholic Bishops and in the process confirming his rejection of the founding idea that “’…to secure these rights government is instituted..”:

“I hate to say it, but you know, you (the bishops) had it coming. And it’s time to wake up and realize that government isn’t the answer to the social ills. It’s people of faith, and it’s families, and it’s communities, and it’s charities that need to do this as it has in America so successfully for so long.”   (Click here for the whole interview.)  

Whew! The need of humans for health care is a social ill? I think the bishops are closer to the truth, everyone should be able to get health care. I think it’s a violation of human dignity to deny anyone health care. That is the language of human rights, unalienable rights if you like .An economic and governmental environment that denies health care to any one is a violation of human rights. The resulting suffering is a social ill. Our government was instituted to ‘secure’ such rights and yes then persons, families, churches, charities, communities and businesses can better provide health care to all. 

Footnotes-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Liberal Credo: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,  that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ... (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/)

Things Dictators Fear

Today in a post on her blog, "The Anhcoress", Elizabeth Scalia makes the point  that Dictators fear Art.

"Great art flourishes when people are free – when they are permitted to tap into the Godspark that resides within them, and this is true, even if they must work within some sort of guideline or restriction. ...Art only dies when the human spirit has been subjugated and trampled on, and submission has become a second-nature."

To read her whole essay click here.

The events in Egypt make clear several more things that Dictators fear. Non-Violent Human Rights Marches, Free Press and Solidarity also stir up the evil in the hearts of dictators.

The human rights marches in Egypt were clearly structured to be non-violent following the practices of the worlds greatest human rights leaders. Notable among these are Lech Walesa, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King and Gandhi. It is notable that this list covers four different continents in their application and four similar yet different human rights issues. All of them were opposed by the powerful and entrenched interests in their countries. Also notable was that when the protection of  those rights were achieved the respective countries moved to form a democratic  governments or opened their democracy to a participation by millions more humans in civil and economic life. 

Lech Walesa, of course, is a Catholic. Both He and Nelson Mandela went on to be elected to lead their countries after their campaigns were successful. Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King were assassinated but both of their efforts resulted in great changes human rights in their countries. In the US two more Catholic have made great use of Non-Violent human rights tactics. They are Dorothy Day, in opposition to the nuclear arms race and Nellie Gray in support of the rights of human life in the womb.

It is also clear that the presence of domestic and international press is identified by Egypt's dictator as a major enemy in his plans to continue to deny basic freedom and civil participation to his people. Fortunately many young people in Egypt have been educated in the US of by US teachers in their own country and they understand the importance of transparent news to their rights. The press was welcomed and encouraged by the human rights march. Now we clearly see the response of the dictator in the beating, arresting and harassing of the press in order to silence them.

The greatest modern examples of solidarity are probably the efforts of the Poles under Lech Walesa and an organization of workers known as "solidarity" and the amazing solidarity across racial and economic barriers achieved by Nelson Mandela. Both our current President and his predecessor have spoken strongly for democracy as the means to achieve human rights and peace in the world, particularly in the Middle East. One tried to do it using war at a terrible cost to us and to the people of Iraq and while a form of democracy had been established there it is not yet clear that human rights will be protected in the long run. Our current President , so far, has taken the road of solidarity by expressing our support for the freedom and rights of all peoples.

So far I would place my bets on solidarity rather than war. The success of John Paul II and Lech Walesa in regard to Poland and Nelson Mandela and Archbishop Tutu in South Africa bodes well for this intuition. We do need to see, soon however, the Egyptian leaders that can pick up this challenge. 

March For Life 2011

Citizens taking to the streets seeking the protection of human rights by their government gets a lot of attention in our media if it is in Tunesia or Egypt but not if it is in our own country! In the last week such citizen activism did occur in Tunsia, Egypt and the United States. If you watched mainstream media, however, you might not even be aware of this huge human rights gathering by citizens of the United States.

A bright spot, if you had the time, was the extensive coverage of the 2011 March for Life provided on EWTN. This posting provides a number of links to pictures from this year's effort.

March for Life Pictures:

Washington  DC-

http://stblogustine.blogspot.com/2011/01/2011-march-for-life-in-washington-dc.html

http://www.aul.org/2011/01/slideshow-2011-march-for-life/

West Coast-

http://www.conversiondiary.com/2011/01/observations-from-the-walk-for-life.html

One striking reality is the size of the youth contingent of the prolife activists. Another is the dramatic testimony of women and men who have regreted their involvement in abortion. The journey from being pro abortion to supporting the human right to life of all humans is described in many ways. Here a few links and videos about some of these journeys:

Abigail:

http://abigails-alcove.blogspot.com/2007/09/how-i-became-pro-life.html

Jennifer:

http://www.conversiondiary.com/2008/01/how-i-became-pro-life.html

Jason:

Ann Marie Cosgrove had an abortion in 1985 when she was young, poor and felt she had nowhere to turn. To ease her pain, Cosgrove founded the Minnesota chapter of Silent No More, a pro-life group dedicated to consoling women who have aborted and encouraging women to make what she considers the only right choice, to keep the baby.

http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/video/video.aspx?testimonyid=5255

The Facts Please

Unlike the hysteria of last year about "OBAMACARE" (there were actually a score or so plans being proposed by legislators that came down two Bills at the end of the year) we now actually have a plan that the President has taken ownership of and discussed with legislators this week. It purports to be a combining of the Senate and House bills with additional features to make it more fiscally conservative.

I heard only a portion of the discussion but I did hear both the President and Representative Pelosi claim that the new proposal would prohibit the spending of tax dollars for abortions. Since they also said their plan did not include the Stupak Amendment (found in the House Bill) in this matter but rather the language from the Senate Bill their claim was incorrect. Americans United for Life, one of the calmer and more rigorous researcher of facts on this human rights issue, has an analysis of the facts found , not in the political pronouncements, but in the text of the bills at issue.

Click here to view the information and analysis.

Speaker Pelosi and the Senate Bill refer to the Hyde Amendment which prohibits tax dollars being spent on abortion in Medicare as the "status qua" and claim that its provisions will remain. The Stupak Amendment prohibits the spending of tax dollars for the provision of abortions under the federal mandates and funding of this reform.

Since we heard several proposals to end Medicare at the recent conservative (TP & CPAC) conferences and the abortion lobby has plenty of resources to twist political arms the reliance on a weak link between Medicare (Public Health Care Insurance) and the reformed rules for private health care and health insurance it is not sufficient to assure the prohibition to the use of our federal tax dollars for abortion in the long run.

At least 70% of Americans oppose the use of their tax dollars for abortions. I think politicians of all parties need to take the views of this majority seriously. Despite the PR of the abortion lobby and the claims of some popular commentators, the Stupak Amendment DOES NOT outlaw abortion or "choice". It does, however, protect citizens from being forced to pay for abortions.

Finally Healthcare Reform?

It looks like we will see health care reform of some kind from Washington in a few weeks. Sadly we might have arrived at this point earlier if the supposed supporters of human rights had stuck to their values and not bargained them away for pork!

The classic case, of course, is Ben Nelson on Nebraska who accepted taxpayer funding of abortion in return for a special Medicare discount for the citizens of his state. As a result he is unlikely to be reelected and his constituents won't see their pork either. Had he and others continued to support the human rights position the Senate bill likely would have had the Stupak amendment included (prohibiting the use of taxes for abortion) and the Senate and House bills would have likely been reconciled with much less angst and markedly more public support (70% of American oppose the use of Taxes to fund abortion) including the Catholic Bishops.

The Stupak amendment is about prohibiting the use of taxes to pay for abortions. Despite the decades long prohibition on the use of taxes for abortion, known as the Hyde amendment, the pro abortion commentators are loudly claiming that Stupak would outlaw abortion or oppose choice. Since the amendment clearly does neither this deliberate distortion should be obvious. In fact, what they (the abortion industry) want is tax dollars that we, the citizens, would have to pay without any choice.

Again I urge you to support health care reform but to insist that it be done so that our taxes are not used for abortions and medical professionals' conscience rights are protected.

Bishops Reaffirm Health Care Reform Support

The US Catholic Bishops are meeting in Baltimore and along with approving a new document on Marriage have reaffirmed their support of health care reform. Here is s short quote from the Baltimore Sun's article on the meeting.

"The bishops meet little more than a week after their successful lobbying effort to strengthen restrictions on abortion in the House version of health care overhaul. That effort led Rep. Lynn Woolsey, a California Democrat, to suggest that the IRS review the church's tax exemption.

The bishops have long called for universal access to health care, but oppose abortion. O'Brien and others have said it is appropriate for Catholics to join the health care debate.

In a statement Tuesday, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, the president of the conference, said they "remain deeply concerned about the debate that now moves to the Senate, especially as it will affect the poor and vulnerable, and those at the beginning and end of life."

I wonder if Congressman Woolsey will be calling for a review of my tax status (or that of 40 of his fellow democratic congressmen) since I (they) also support health care reform and oppose classifying the human right violation of abortion as health care or the use of tax dollars to pay for it.

A Special Plea To Senators Grassley & Issacson

I was pleased to hear President Obama single out Senator Grassley of Iowa as an example of a conservative who is serious about health care reform. I was pleased because the Senator and I are both Pro-Life even though we are of opposite political party it is important that pro-life voices remain involved in this effort as the Human rights stakes are too-too high.

As of now, however, I am convinced he has given up the pro-life effort in this matter. On several channels this evening Senator Grassley was seen and heard lying to my generation (I am 70) about a element of one of the health care bills being considered (there are many). The wording of the provision, I understand was a verbatim match with a provision of an earlier bill sponsored by several Republican Senators, including Senator Issacson of Georgia, that provide that consultations about end of life care with your doctor, Hospice (usually a Charity), your lawyer might be paid by your insurance.

Now, Senator Issacson, is also Pro-life and was also named by the President as a Conservative who was serious about health care. While the Senator from Iowa is of special interest as a neighbor and I was careful to hear him in his own words.I understand, again from reports on more than one channel, that Senator Issacson has also removed himself from the healthcare discussion.

Having sat in on these kinds of consultations with several relatives they do not relate at all to the lies we are now hearing. This is bad news indeed. We need these pro-life voices in the discussion! We will get healthcare reform with human rights and conscience protections or without them. I urge both of them to return to the table and certainly stop lying to us Seniors and playing on our fears. The stakes are too high. Tell the anti life forces to get off your backs and let you do your jobs.

Senators, please turn your backs on the anti life forces that have convinced you (perhaps through economic pressure?) to compromise your human rights ideals and and honesty with us seniors.

When Does Human Life Begin?

I often hear Catholic Politicians claim that they cannot be politically pro-life because it would be an imposition of their religious belief on others to do so. This view is not limited to Catholics or Democrats. I have heard it also in day to day conversations about abortion with pro-choice persons of every political persuasion. When I ask my friend to describe the belief that I am forcing him or her to accept I usually am told it is the belief that human life begins at conception.

Faith or belief is the acceptance of something that cannot be established by science. The fact that human life begins at conception is not a matter of faith but of established scientific fact. This kind of kicks the stool from under those Catholic politicians using this excuse. Here is a review of one man's reaction to this reality.

Dr. Bernard Nathanson was one of the founders of the National Association for the Repeal of the Abortion Laws (NARAL) in the U.S. in 1968. In 1973 he took a job involving Fetal Science. This eventually led to his becoming pro-life. Here is a quote from his explanation of his change on this issue.

"I am often asked what made me change my mind. How did I change from prominent abortionist to pro-life advocate? In 1973, I became director of obstetrics of a large hospital in New York City and had to set up a prenatal research unit, just at the start of a great new technology which we now use every day to study the foetus in the womb.

A favourite pro-abortion tactic is to insist that the definition of when life begins is impossible; that the question is a theological or moral or philosophical one, anything but a scientific one. Foetology makes it undeniably evident that life begins at conception and requires all the protection and safeguards that any of us enjoy.

Why, you may well ask, do some American doctors who are privy to the findings of foetology, discredit themselves by carrying out abortions? Simple arithmetic at $300 a time, 1.55 million abortions means an industry generating $500,000,000 annually, of which most goes into the pocket of the physician doing the abortion. It is clear that permissive abortion is purposeful destruction of what is undeniably human life. It is an impermissible act of deadly violence.

One must concede that unplanned pregnancy is a wrenchingly difficult dilemma, but to look for its solution in a deliberate act of destruction is to trash the vast resourcefulness of human ingenuity, and to surrender the public weal to the classic utilitarian answer to social problems.

AS A SCIENTIST I KNOW, NOT BELIEVE, KNOW THAT HUMAN LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION "

Read Dr. Nathanson's entire statement.

MAYBE THIS IS WORTH A TRY

The war of words rages on about Notre Dame's graduation plans. The war is getting a lot of attention from the secular media because it features Catholics shouting at each other. Now we get a refreshing "new" idea, let actually talk to the president about the issue!

CNS reports that "the head of the Holy Cross religious order that founded the University of Notre Dame has written to U.S. President Barack Obama and asked him to rethink his positions on abortion and other life issues.

U.S. Father Hugh W. Cleary, Holy Cross superior general in Rome, said that when Obama receives an honorary degree from the Indiana university and delivers the commencement address in May, he should take to heart the objections of Catholics who have been scandalized by the invitation.

Father Cleary asked the president to use the occasion to "give your conscience a fresh opportunity to be formed anew in a holy awe and reverence before human life in every form at every stage -- from conception to natural death."

Read the whole story on Catholic News Service

Sadly we pro life citizens seem to be willing to yell at each yet put little or no effort into addressing the opponent. I was always taught that it was one of the most common tactic of the evil one, get good folks to fight each other and evil wins by default.

There are some life issues on which the President does agrees with the Catholic position. His opposition to torture ,unjust wars and slavery are consistent with the Catechism. In any case he has often exhibited a willingness to talk with his opponents. Perhaps Fr. Cleary's letter will represent a challenge that will be taken seriously.

Some humor or irony can be found in the buzz. One commenter on the CNS story actually classified Pope Benedict as a "marginalized Catholic figure". The Church exists in over two hundred countries around the world and interacts with presidents, premiers, kings and dictators of all kinds. I would guess that the Pope finds our President more open to Catholic input than the majority of leaders around the world.

Notre Dame Protests

Much blogging and editorializing has ensued following the decision of Notre Dame University to invite President Obama to speak at and receive an honorary degree at its graduation ceremony later this Spring. It is puzzling that an institution whose graduates have championed human rights around the world would take this decision in light of the mixed human rights decisions the President has made to date.

One measured response was from Bishop D'Arcy in whose diocese Notre Dame is located.

"This will be the 25th Notre Dame graduation during my time as bishop. After much prayer, I have decided not to attend the graduation. I wish no disrespect to our president, I pray for him and wish him well. I have always revered the Office of the Presidency. But a bishop must teach the Catholic faith “in season and out of season,” and he teaches not only by his words — but by his actions. My decision is not an attack on anyone, but is in defense of the truth about human life. "


View the Bishop's entire statement here.

What Ideology Does Science Trump?

The other day President Obama reversed the presidential policy of blocking federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. His remarks included characterizing this change as a victory of science over ideology. My first reaction was to ask what was the ideology that was vanquished?

While conservatives will assume it is their view that is being attacked and Christians will assume it the Christian view that is meant, it seems clear to me that the ideology that is meant is the liberal view that humans possess rights due to their being human. The issue of when human life begins, in our time, is not a matter of faith but well documented by science. What is at dispute is not the science but the politics of which humans' rights are to be protected.

FROM US NEWS And WORLD REPORT:
"As if the Republicans didn't have enough political problems already, embryonic stem cell research is another sticky wicket for the GOP. According to Pew, 60 percent of Democrats and 55 percent of independents back the research, while just 37 percent of Republicans do. That explains why support for embryonic stem cell research is such a no-brainer for the Democrats—it's the rare wedge issue in which the wedge breaks the Dems' way."

What stikes me is is how large the minority is that does not back the use of tax dollars for for reseach that destroys human embryios. It seems that the Democrats have a huge wedge of their own. 40% of Democrats, those who most likely were among those voting for Barack Obama, oppose this change!

The media seems willing to foster the impression or assumption that support for stem cell research, which is widespread, is somehow equal to approval of the destruction of human ebryios. The Pew statistics suggest that this is a suspect assumption.

Pro Life Roots

This week's America Magazine has several excellent articles on the roots of the Pro Life Movement in the US which existed prior to Roe v Wade, the role of Catholics in the recent election and the multigenerational impact of abortion on a family.

Human rights support, for Catholics, begin in the Church's social doctrine. The right of all humans to life itself is violated daily in our world. Vatican II published a list of actions opposed to life. The list is as follows.


PASTORAL CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH IN THE MODERN WORLD (1964)

(from Section 27)"Furthermore, whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are supreme dishonor to the Creator."

Minnesota - A Pro Life Example

I spent about ten years in elected and appointed political office in New Jersey. I was a Councilman in a small country municipality. The majority of the citizens there considered themselves Republican yet elected several Democrats to office. My Federal congressional district was served by a pro abortion Republican who is still in office 20 years later. In the last few elections before moving to Minnesota neither party offered pro-life candidate in my district. However, in the last Congress (110th) the New Jersey delegation was almost totally polarized by party on on the abortion issue.

In the early 90s I dropped out of the Democratic Party in face of the deliberate exclusion of the traditional liberals from participation in the National Democratic Convention. These "shunned" liberals (as I labeled us in yesterday's post) have been deliberately alienated, a fact extensively documented in academic and investigative publications over the last two years. This exclusion came to a head and was symbolized by the removal of Pennsylvania's Governor Casey from the list of speakers for the convention. He had just too many liberal positions to be tolerate by the conservatives in control of the party, then lead by Bill Clinton. Among his(Casey's)liberal positions were pro-labor and pro-human rights, including pro-life and was openly religious.

On moving back to Minnesota, where I had first gotten involved in politics, I was pleased to find strong human rights supporters in both the Republican and Democratic (DFL) party. In the 110th congress Minnesota's delegation was 50% pro-life with 40% of Democrats and 66% of Republicans voting strongly pro-life. In the senate it was 50/50 along party lines. 50% of my new state's federal legislators were pro-life! The frosting on the cake is that my congressional district is served by a pro-life Democrat.

I have been making the case that the current major parties no longer reflect the traditional liberal-conservative model. The situation in Minnesota seems to confirm the resulting fragmentation of human rights supporters . The liberals were progressively alienated by the Democratic leadership in the seventies and eighties. Some of them moved, attracted by the former labor union president and pro-life Ronald Reagan, to the Republican roster were they are, at best, tolerated. Perhaps another half of the shunned liberals moved to the left of the Democratic establishment where we largely continue in "shunned" status.

What Party Should Human Rights Supporters Join?

Another point of my sister's letter was a question (see yesterday's posting). "Why don't conservative Dem's go into the Republican party and make changes there cause the dem's will never give up the abortion of innocents?"

My quick answer is that that is unlikely since they (conservative dems) now and have for almost twenty years controlled the National Democratic Party and its platform. They probably think they are sitting pretty with pro human rights supporter to their left (the liberal dems) and pro human rights supporter to their right (the liberal reps). As I have explained earlier in this blog, the pro human rights (and anti abortion) position is inherently liberal. The support of inherent human rights is the essence of the liberal idea in politics. The championing of the rights of the weak (usually a minority) against the power of the strong has always tagged one as a liberal.

Of course my sister's reaction is not unusual. On Thursday during my lunch break I watched and listened to the speakers at the Right To Life March in Washington. I was struck by the optimism expressed about our new president. There was an almost universal request for prayers for his success. As I indicated yesterday he apparently convinced many of his sincerity about reducing abortions. I pray that his pitch was genuine.

When my republican coworker picked me up after lunch I was therefore overflowing with the excitement of seeing so many human rights supporters present in Washington and for the first time in a long time at least a couple of democratic based groups participated. My coworker appeared baffled when I told him that Human Rights support was an inherently liberal position. He felt that you could not be a democrat and be pro-life. One needed to be a republican to be pro-life. I ,of course, said that to be pro-life was to be liberal, a truth he was not prepared to hear.

On Friday I had lunch with a democratic friend who shares many of my values except she is willing to tolerate the human rights violation inherent in abortion. Her view is that the pro human right position on this issue is anti choice (note small letters) , choice being a liberal position in her perspective. She, like my republican associate, was certain that this issue divides us democrats and republicans. Here is a major part of the continuing human rights standoff on this issue.

The political parties have been complicit in labelling the two sides to suit their own agenda which is not human rights but getting and retaining power. PRO CHOICE and PRO-LIFE (note capital Letters) sides are emphatically neither. I acknowledge that there may be some on the Pro-Choice side that are truly anti-life and there may be some on the Pro-Life side that are truly anti-choice but the vast majority on either side are neither yet have been convinced that the other group is. How sad we have let ourselves be so exploited.

The pro-choice persons I know appear genuine in their desire that abortions be reduced and avoided yet have been convinced that pro-life persons are anti-choice. Being on the human rights side of the issue I am more familiar with the pro-lifers none of whom are anti-choice (please note the lower case!) yet have been convinced that pro-choice persons are anti-life.

The world view of the main pro-life movement cannot be anti-choice since choice is the very characteristic that sets such a high value on being human! In technical terms "choice" means a uniquely human freedom made up of two parts, "free will" and "conscience".

A second fear I hear often from pro-choice persons is that the pro-life position is one of judgement and condemnation and not love. This likewise is illogical since while the pro-life movement is not exclusively Christian its large Christian contingent is explicitly taught by its founder to not judge others, to be loving, merciful and forgiving. This fact should allay any such fear among the pro-choicers. For proof watch or listen to the many voices last week who spoke at the march for life, men and women who had abortions or paid for abortions. Note the almost universal praying for our new president who has yet to demonstrate adequate human rights support and for their pro-choice bothers and sisters.

In some sense politics is a continuum yet it can also be gerrymandered. On the issue of human rights the politicians have fragmented and made us impotent.

The abortion issue will not go away in part because the idealists have been artificially fragmented and pitted agianst each other distracting us from the shinanigans of the politically powerful. This year we have taken the bull by the horns and made a break with this pattern. Let us truly and honestly talk together and heal this breech so that the cure truly happens.

Theoretical: (& simplistic)	Left -----------------------------------------------------Right
	Liberal -----------------------------------------Conservative
	Democrat ------------------------------------------Republican
ACTUAL:	Liberal (Shunned)	/ ~ ~ /	Democrats (In Power)	/ ~ ~ /	Liberal (Tolerated)	/ ~ ~ /	Republicans (in Power)
	Labor		Middle Class		Small Business		Big Business
	Human Rights				Human Rights
	Idealistic		Utilitarian		Idealistic		Utilitarian