Equal Rights are not Special Rights

I listened to the entire Supreme Court argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health last Wednesday.  You can listen to the recording here – DOBBS RECORDING  or read the transcript here -TRANSCRIPT. 

I have no intention here of going through/evaluating all the arguments or predicting outcomes.  Many commentators have already done that and you also can listen/read the above and make your own judgments and predictions.

After making a few brief comments I simply want to focus on the idea of the woman’s right itself, as it struck me from the arguments of the Respondent and the Solicitor General.

As to the few short observations – I thought the attorney for the Petitioner State of Mississippi was outstanding.  Regardless of one’s biases or feelings about the case, he was a fine example of what should be expected of anyone arguing before the Supreme Court.  He was incredibly well prepared, thoroughly knew and understood the relevant law and facts as well as the policy arguments involved.  He listened to the Justices’ questions and concerns, answered their questions, and presented a persuasive case for his client.

I found the other attorneys, while polished orators, to be less prepared and less able to actually answer the Justice’s concerns.

I was impressed with all but one of the Justices.  Eight seemed to ask fair and important questions that were designed to help them to understand aspects of the case or the arguments so as to better render an appropriate decision.  I was disappointed in Justice Sotomayor who seemed to be unnecessarily biased and argumentative in her questions during this argument.

But one thing that struck me about the arguments of the Respondent Jackson Women’s Health and the U.S. Solicitor General were the seeming reliance on some sort of special equality held by women.   These attorneys were arguing to uphold Roe v. Wade and to strike down the Mississippi law banning abortion after 15 weeks. 

These attorneys argued that women have a fundamental right to abortion.  When asked what this specific right is – where it is or arises from in the Constitution, they repeatedly referred to “liberty.” If one cuts through all the chaff, their argument seems to be that while we all have a right to liberty, women have a special right within that which allows them to terminate the life of another, at least until that life becomes viable outside the womb.

Now last time I read our Constitution, it provides and demands equal rights for all citizens, not different or special rights for one group or another.  Yet what their argument does is to take the liberty right from the unborn child, giving it no rights at all, and then adding that child’s rights to the woman’s liberty right, giving her some sort of super right.

A woman’s right to control her own body is not a special right, but one that exists for all of us (mandates not withstanding).  But when that right includes the right to take another life as abortion does, it becomes a special right.  Giving women the right to take away the right of another in essence gives them a super-equality; an “equality” that is more than the equality of others.  That flies in the face of the demands of our Constitution and our core principles of equality and liberty for all. 

The weakness of this pro-abortion argument exemplifies the underlying weakness of the Roe v. Wade decision and of the assertion that a woman holds the right to choose not only what happens to her life, but to the life of a separate individual in her womb.  If the woman’s right is based on liberty, it is also a denial of liberty to another.

Other arguments were similarly weak:  for some reason it is, in the mind of the respondent and the DOJ, acceptable that a woman’s right to abortion may be curtailed after the point of viability (somewhere around 24 weeks) but 15 weeks is too early.  Their reliance on the difficulties faced in raising a child were cut short when Justice Barrett reminded them that a woman could give up a child for adoption almost immediately after birth, thus avoiding the alleged harm of parenting.

They also had no real answer to why this question of right to abortion,  not set forth in the Constitution, should be decided by 9 Justices rather than by the people or their legislative representatives.  They asserted it was because those 9 had, in Roe v. Wade, said it was a right.  This circular reasoning does not answer or prove why those 9, not the people, should decide whether that right exists and if so to what extent.

The arguments of Respondent and DOJ simply were not convincing.  They asserted a right exists which puts the women’s rights, her equality, above others, but couldn’t explain precisely what this right is or where this right came from other than a Court decision.  They couldn’t explain why it is necessary that women be granted a special right, giving them some sort of greater liberty or super-equality.

And, when it came to the question of whether the Court should re-examine and possibly overturn Roe v. Wade, they argued no, primarily based on nothing more than that the case and its created right to abortion has been around so long. 

Indeed, there was much questioning about whether the court should touch the Roe ruling, especially with the strong political split about a woman’s right to abortion.  Is it some super case that the court cannot touch?

The State’s attorney analogized to the overturning, after 58 years, of Plessy v. Ferguson, the case that created separate but equal, by Brown vs. Board of Education, the case that ruled racial segregation unconstitutional.  In his rebuttal he stated:

In closing, I would say that in his dissent in Plessy versus Ferguson, Justice Harlan emphasized that there is no caste system here. The humblest in our country is the pure, the most powerful. Our Constitution neither knows nor tolerates distinctions on the basis of race.  It took 58 years for this Court to recognize the truth of those realities in a decision, and that was the greatest decision that this Court ever reached. We're -- we're running on 50 years of Roe. It is an egregiously wrong decision that has inflicted tremendous damage on our country and will continue to do so and take innumerable human lives unless and until this Court overrules it.

Just as Brown v. Board, while focused on race, demanded recognition of true equality, so it is crucial that our current Supreme Court also focus on the equality demanded by the Constitution.   Neither women nor any other group should be granted super-rights or super-equality.  And especially not at the expense of the liberty and life of another human being.

Roe v. Wade is not protected from overrule.  If it is Constitutionally proper to overrule it then that is what should be done.  As Chief Justice Roberts noted, no matter how the Court decides, it will likely be charged with political bias in its decision.  So let us hope that they, like the Justices who decided Brown, have the courage to do what the Constitution demands, no matter what the political fallout may be.

My Offense at The Salvation Army’s “Wokeness” Is Personal

When my grandfather, an immigrant to America, died, the family received hordes of messages of grief from local neighbors and from foreign heads of state and everyone in between.  The expressions of sorrow on his passing were combined with proclamations of thanks and honor for his humanity and his philanthropy. 

In America my grandfather learned English, worked his way to receive degrees in chemistry and management, worked his way up to a position of Executive Vice President in a large corporation, and, most importantly to him, spent his life doing work on behalf of others including work with the Salvation Army. 

My grandfather was a lifelong Rotarian, serving Rotary both locally and internationally.   As President of Rotary International, he traveled around the world in the years shortly after WWII.  He spoke of the hope he had for world peace as the United Nations was formed. He was decorated by the governments of France and Lebanon.  He served Rotary throughout his life, but he also served his community.  

He was a member of the Board of Education for 25 years and was also briefly on the City Council.  He was President of the Detroit Tuberculosis Society, served on the city convention bureau, Director and Past President of the Convention and Tourist Bureau, was Director of the Inter-American Center and of the Civic Light Opera Association, member of the Area Council of Boy Scouts, Director of the Boys' Club and Director of the United Savings Bank.  He was a member of the city economic club and the Chamber of Commerce and the State Legislature Advisory Council.  He was an active member of his Methodist church, serving on the Board and as its President.  His hometown named a school after him.  

And my grandfather served as Chairman of the Advisory Board of the Salvation Army. In that capacity, he served his community, including helping in the establishment of a hospital and then group home for unwed mothers and their families. I can remember his care and concern for others.  Going to his house on occasion I would find someone there of different nationality and/or different color whom he was personally counseling and helping with some personal issue.  He didn’t brag about what he did, following the idea that the Army’s work is not glorified but rather approaches areas others never touch and “deals with broken minds and broken people to help them find themselves.  Little of what the Army does ever comes to light.”

The Salvation Army conferred upon my grandfather its Order of Distinguished Auxiliary Service.  He once said “You always feel grateful to the people and the country that made such a thing [his success] possible.  So, when I can I like to pitch in and help make such things possible for others.”

My grandfather did not have a racist bone in his body.  Yet, if he were alive today the Salvation Army would label him as racist simply because of his color and his faith.

The Salvation Army has new materials titled “Let’s Talk About Race.”  LINK  

Its content essentially puts forth the most racist aspects of Critical Race Theory and other similar programs that would divide us by race and hold certain identity groups guilty for what the theory labels as evils of the past.  The document urges Whites to stop trying to be colorblind (that of course means interacting with one another based on the color of one’s skin rather than the content of their character – a complete reversal of the once lauded goal of Martin Luther King Jr.)

The goals of this new program of the Army include: “to “lament, repent and apologize for biases or racist ideologies held and actions committed.”   The resource claims Christianity is inherently racist and calls for white Christians to repent and offer “a sincere apology” to Blacks for being “antagonistic… to black people or the culture, values and interests of the Black community.” 

In an accompanying Study Guide on Racism, the Salvation Army proclaims Whites are racist. “The subtle nature of racism is such that people who are not consciously racist easily function with the privileges, empowerment and benefits of the dominant ethnicity, thus unintentionally perpetuating injustice.” 

My grandfather was not perfect, but he was not ever “antagonistic… to black people or the culture, values and interests of the black community.”  He was not antagonistic to anyone, consciously or unconsciously.  Instead, he treated everyone equally and fairly for the individual that they were.  His humanitarian behavior was in large part formed by his Christianity.  That Christianity was not racist.  Yet today my grandfather would be asked to repent and apologize for his racism and hatred that in reality did not exist.

Because of my grandfather’s commitment to the goals and mission of Salvation Army, I have always donated, both monetarily and in other ways, to the Army.  Just last week I gave them a generous donation and we have a large donation of slightly used clothing and household items ready to go to them.

But those things will not go to the Salvation Army.  Nor will any future donations.  I might assume the Army doesn’t even want them from someone they see as an unrepentant racist.  Would they have turned down all my grandfather’s good works if he did not satisfy their demand for repentance and lament?

My grandfather said of himself that “analysis was his natural bent in his approach to every problem.” I think I inherited that love of analysis from him.  When I analyze what the Salvation Army is currently doing, I am at a complete loss.  Why would a good and humanitarian institution suddenly decide that they have the right to judge and condemn an entire race, not based on any actual evidence but simply on accepting the popular woke theories of racism? 

And how does this help the people whom the Salvation Army serves?  Go online and see how many people are stopping donations.  How is that going to help anyone, especially those who were once served by donations of time and money from the Whites whom the Army has now labeled as evil and in need of repentance?

The answer is that this new wokeness does not serve the mission of the Salvation Army or the people whom it traditionally has served.  It divides people rather than bringing them together.  It serves to feed the hate that is already rampant in our country.

I have no issue with self-examination – of one’s biases and one’s privileges.  But we all have biases of some sort and are privileged in one way or another.  Not all, indeed not even most, use their biases and privileges either consciously or unconsciously to antagonize and hurt others who are not like them.  That the Salvation Army thinks we do, at least if we are White, shows that the Army has lost its way along with its humility, tolerance, and love.

It hurts me deeply as I think of all the good my grandfather did in his work with the Army and his respect for that organization.  It hurts as I think of this man of peace who wanted to bring the world together, knowing that one of the organizations he so respected is now a part of the movement that tears us all apart.  It hurts me deeply to know that this is not some isolated happening, but it is the trend as wokeness takes over our culture.   

Contrary to the Salvation Army’s proclamation, the Christianity that I know, like the Christ upon which it is based, is not racist. I will pray that the racism and equity of wokeness will not survive and that we may soon return to a culture and a country that aspires to tolerance and equality. 

Nothing But Big Bullies

 We hear about bullying on the schoolyard and we hear about cyberbullying.  But beyond the schoolyard, bullying can be very sophisticated.  Adult bullies may engage in smear campaigns against their targets rather than insult them to their faces. They might also enlist others to bully a target on their behalf.  Such a bully’s end goal is to humiliate or harm other individuals with the intent of ruining their reputation or harming their self-worth.

Bullies victimize others by using tactics including:  Intimidation, threats, insults, intentional exclusion, spreading rumors and lies.  Cyberbullying is: the use of electronic communication to bully a person.  It includes sending, posting, or sharing negative, harmful, false, or mean content about someone else

Cyberbullying can lead to anxiety, depression and even suicide. Teenagers and young adults are especially vulnerable to cyberbullying.

Political, religions, educational, corporate, entertainment, and social and news media leaders all claim to oppose and attempt to educate against it.  The Federal Government via the Dept. of Health and Human services even has a web site (https://www.stopbullying.gov/) designed to prevent cyberbullying.  Teenagers and young adults are especially vulnerable to cyberbullying.

Yet, what else but cyberbullying are the lies, slander, and continuing harassment against Kyle Rittenhouse (and before him Niholas Sandmann). 

In August of 2020 in Kenosha Wisconsin there was a demonstration that turned into a riot.  Seventeen-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse had attended that protest to help keep the peace (there is no evidence to contradict that statement of his intention).  At some point he legally became armed with an AK-47 as he served as guard for some private property. 

Video tape shows that Rittenhouse was attacked by protestors/rioters – one chased and threw items at him, another grabbed his gun, one stomped and kicked Rittenhouse while he was on the ground and a fourth admitted under oath that he pointed a gun at Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse shot at him.  Kyle Rittenhouse shot and killed two men and wounded a third.  He asserted that he did so in self-defense.  Worth noting is that the people whom Rittenhouse shot were not Black.  Prior to the shooting incident Rittenhouse had been seen, in addition to protecting the private property, to be cleaning up graffiti and debris caused by the protesters with whom those shot were in solidarity. 

Within hours, the Left and the media had decided that young Rittenhouse was guilty of murder, was a White supremacist and racist, was a right-wing fanatic and Trump supporter and should be destroyed.  They had no evidence of any of this and still do not.  Nonetheless, it fit the narrative to turn this boy into an evil scapegoat for all of their hate and anger.

Their rush to judgment was arrived at and as evidence came out that began to prove that judgment false, the media and the Left did not back off or apologize but instead doubled down.  The President called Rittenhouse a White Supremacist and to this moment has not withdrawn that unfounded and slanderous claim.  The narrative of the Left demanded guilt, not truth.

Once charged by an over-zealous prosecutor with several felonies that were not supportable with evidence, Kyle Rittenhouse, his family, his defense team and others associated with the case received numerous death threats.  Kyle was called names and threated on social media.  The news media referred to him as a murderer, and someone who should be put away – hopefully for life.  They named him as the poster boy for racism, hatred, white privilege and every other thing that they like to blame for victimhood. 

Again, let’s remember that those shot were not Black.  The Left’s reasoning apparently goes something like this:  The riot had been the eventual result of protests against a police shooting of a Black man.  The protest/riot was against the police who should be condemned for their systemic racism.  Therefore, anyone who was not protesting/rioting and especially anyone who was there to support calls for peace and/or to support law enforcement must of necessity be a White supremacist – the sort of person we need to get rid of.  Anyone with just a passing brush with logic will see the illogic of this thinking!

As the case worked its way through the slow and deliberative judicial system where actual facts were brought forth and actual laws reviewed the Left bullies tried to intimidate the jury into condemning Kyle Rittenhouse.  Then, even when the jury of citizens examined both facts and law (as opposed to narrative) and reached their verdict of not guilty on all counts, the press, the Left, and even the President continue their attacks on and harassment of Kyle Rittenhouse.  They seem determined to ruin his life for the rest of his days.  Many seek federal and civil actions against this young person. 

Why do they continue to bully Kyle Rittenhouse?  Not because there is any justification to do so.  Rather it is just because they did not get what they wanted; they cannot accept a verdict that did not go their way.  It is a threat to their power which they seem to believe is, or should be, absolute.

The attacks and bullying were similar in the case of Nicholas Sandmann whom you will recall stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in January 2019, wearing a MAGA hat while a native American activist stood in his path.  Nicholas, who was 16 at the time, did nothing but was immediately determined to be guilty of some sort of confrontation and of course of White Supremacy.  When video came out disproving the narrative of the Left and the media, again they did not apologize or back off but instead doubled down on their bullying of young Sandmann.

In an interview this past week discussing Kyle Rittenhouse, Sandmann stated that he has found it difficult to return to normal life after watching CNN, MSNBC and others report irresponsibly on his encounter with Native American elder Nathan Phillips.  "It was like a car crash you can't look away from, you are not able to look away. My eyes were glued to the TV watching my character get torn apart.”

He further described what bullying at a national level can do to a teen. “Well, it’s terrible, and I’ll tell you why. As a 17-year-old, in Kyle’s case, and mine 16, your mind is still developing, and so, to deal with an overload of stress where you have this feeling that half of the country, hundreds of millions of people hate you for something that you’re innocent of, but how you are painted, it can do a lot to you mentally. It takes a very strong will to be able to resist that and keep a level head. I know that Kyle is probably dealing with that right now.”

If this all isn’t bullying I don’t know what is.  Like school bullies, the media, the Left, the Democrat administration and leaders irresponsibly rush to judgment, condemn, bully, intimidate, and harass, with no concern for the young lives they are destroying.  It is about their power just as any bullying is about power. 

According to the mental health site verywellmind.com,  bullying is linked to power imbalances:  bullies target those with less power than they have.  “People who engage in this conduct: feel powerless, suffer from insecurity, need to control others, and enjoy the rewards they get from bullying.”

This is all about attacking positions and policies that contradict those put forward by the Left, its media, and its politicians.  They would do away with opposition and hence give themselves more power. 

The political bullying of the Left is, moreover, a bullying of our entire country.  We are a nation governed by law.  The refusal of the Left to accept the legal process, to assert a right to attack that very process when they do not get their way, is dangerous not only to those involved but for everyone of us who benefit from the freedoms we enjoy that are protected by that rule of law.

Bullying is wrong.  We all know it is wrong.  We teach school children not to bully.  And we tell those witnessing to speak up and stop the bullying.  Verywellmind states:

Bystanders can play important roles in ending the bullying they see, particularly if they are in positions of power or have the same rank as the bully. Rather than turning a blind eye to bullying, witnesses can call out the bully or report the bully’s behavior to others. Witnesses can also take the initiative by backing up the target’s accounts about the bully. Unfortunately, many bystanders don’t speak up because they’re afraid they’ll become the bully’s next target.

We are all bystanders to the horrendous bullying of the media and the Left.  Perhaps we are willing to tolerate it when the bullying is between politicians.  But when children are bullied because they stand by their values, follow the law, but take a position contrary to the Left narrative, we must speak up.  Yes, we may very well become the bully’s next target (personal experience tells me that will happen) but that should not stop us. 

We cannot turn a blind eye.  The Left has chosen to bully its way to power.  The media has joined that march, giving up any semblance of objective journalism.  It is up to we the people to call out the political bullying that is going on all around us.  Even if done by a party with whose policies you agree, bullying is not the way to support and enact those policies. 

We all know the saying “If you see something, say something.”  We must speak up or the bullies will destroy our country.

Learning From Today’s History

In the past 24 hours I have witnessed two important events in the history of our country.

First, enjoying the power of their one-party rule over this country and the lives of its people, the Democrat House members passed their $1,700,000,000,000 social justice bill that the CBO has told us will cost us far more than that.  Most estimates are in the area of at least $5,000,000,000,000.  It will likely add $750,000,000,000 to the deficit over five years. 

Contrary to the promises of the Democrats, the bill is not fully paid for, it will increase our national debt significantly, a debt that will fall on the heads of our children and their children’s children for generations to come.  It will increase taxes and its provisions will have the most detrimental effects on the middle class.  Its provisions are contrary to many of the core values and principles of America. 

Prior to the partisan vote on the bill, House minority leader Kevin McCarthy gave a nearly 9 hour speech, much of which I listened to, which struck me as a sort of eulogy for the greatness that has been America. He was not wrong in that view of the effects of this bill.

Second, the Kyle Rittenhouse jury came in after 3 days of deliberations and found Mr. Rittenhouse not guilty on all counts.  This they did despite overwhelming pressure to render the harshest guilty verdicts possible.  Despite the fact that the Leftist propaganda machine went into overdrive as it rushed to judgment to convict Mr. Rittenhouse, these jurors were able to keep open minds, listen, and objectively evaluate the actual facts and evidence presented in light of the actual law.

What do we learn about our country and its people from the above two events?

I think that one thing we learn is that there are politicians in Washington (and probably in state leadership roles as well) who have forgotten who and what they and their role are.  They no longer listen to and then represent the will and best interests of their constituents, the people to whom the government and future of our country actually belong.  Instead, they have decided that they know what is best for all of us, they will make us into who and what they desire, all while furthering and expanding their own power.

While these politicians will pretend that what they do is for this country and its people, they must know that what they are doing is destroying America and with it the rich diversity of individuals within.  They would have us all walk in lockstep with their plans while our individual beliefs, dreams, goals, lives as well as our children, grandchildren, and generations beyond be damned, as long as the Left gets its way.

Interestingly, the Democrats chose to ignore the CBO evaluation of their bill, stating they liked the White House’s figures better.  No matter to them that those figures are, if not wrong, clearly in question, clearly a threat to the American people.  But we should know by now that facts and reality do not matter to the Left; rather it is all about the narrative –  a narrative structured on lies and omissions if necessary to support their thirst for power and control.

Which brings me to the Rittenhouse verdict and most importantly the jurors.  These are the true people of America.  These are the people who still believe in the rule of law, in facts and evidence rather than opinion and ideology. 

From the Rittenhouse jury we learn about the heroism of everyday Americans.

This jury is heroic in my view.   Not because of the specific verdict (though my understanding of the evidence and the law leads me to believe that no other verdict was possible), but because they sat in the courtroom with open minds and listened to the actual evidence. They listened to the law upon which they were instructed and applied that law to the actual facts.  And then they reached their verdict.   They did this despite ugly, loud, and sometimes violent protests demanding guilty verdicts that could be heard inside the courtroom and the jury deliberation room.  They then put forth the verdict that their deliberations determined to be just.  

This is not what the Left, the media, the President, the mob would have had them do.

The Rittenhouse jurors deliberated according to the law. They did this despite the fact that before the trial had even begun the media had already convicted Mr. Rittenhouse, plastering the airwaves with sometimes false and usually misleading information about the events of his arrest.  Even when exculpatory evidence, some even put forth by the prosecution, was presented, the media doubled down on its condemnation of Mr. Rittenhouse.  Even under instructions not to read or watch the news about this trial, in a 24/7 media madhouse, it must have been hard to avoid it entirely when going home each day from the courthouse.

The media was caught following the jurors home and perhaps taking their pictures.  Various Leftist groups threatened violence if the jurors did not render a guilty verdict.  Despite such attempts at intimidation, the jurors did their job. 

Despite the questionable ethics of the prosecution in relationship to the question of withholding key evidence and of actually investigating the facts and reading the relevant law before charging a defendant, the jury did its job. 

The jurors deliberated according to the law and the facts despite President Biden and his administration rushing to judgment and almost immediately proclaiming Mr. Rittenhouse to be a White Supremacist and racist. Biden and his administration maintained this view through the trial, notwithstanding that there was and remains absolutely no evidence of that. 

These jurors are heroes who taught us how the American legal system works including its fairness and its refusal to prejudge or be swayed by the mob. 

The jurors took their job seriously.  They kept their minds open in this complicated and politically charged case.  They listened to the judge’s instructions on the law.  They applied that law to the actual facts and spent 3 days doing all this in detail in the jury deliberation room. 

Having reached their verdict, the jury then had the courage to bring forth their verdict knowing that the haters and the ideologues would condemn them, the verdict, the defendant, and possibly destroy their city. 

This jury is a profile in courage.   And it is these jurors that represent the people of this country and who and what we are.   America is not the politicians who do as they please without regard to reality and the actual people who live within it.  America is the people who understand and defend the ideas of fairness and justice, of innocence until proof of guilt, and the rule of law. 

As long as we have citizens with the strength and honesty of this Rittenhouse jury, we will have hope for America.  We Americans must, however, demand that our politicians not forget who we are.  We must demand that they hold first and foremost in their policies and actions the sort of strength and honesty exhibited by the Rittenhouse American jury, rather than their own lust for power and authority.  Our nation and the good of its people demand nothing less.

The Story Does Not Have to End Badly

ONCE UPON A TIME

Once upon a time people took responsibility for their own lives. If they felt unhappy, suffered a setback, were hurt physically or emotionally, they might ask for temporary help or consolement, but would work towards, and then would, pick themselves up and move forward. Not diminishing the hurt and pain, but learning from it, working to see that it did not repeat itself.

Once upon a time, people were honest, or at least tried to be. When they made a mistake they would admit it, take responsibility, face the consequences, and, again, learn from it.

Once upon a time, people did not blame all their problems on others, without taking any responsibility for themselves, without acknowledging that sometimes life just isn’t fair, that things happen.

Once upon a time, people actually believed that things happen for a reason; reasons that mere mortals may not understand at the moment.

Once upon a time, people did not live only in the moment, needing immediate gratification and resolution. Instead, they had and respected the concept of patience, understanding that things take time to evolve and to come to fruition.  Understanding this, they were also willing to work for their and society’s goals without receiving immediate gratification or compensation or awards for their efforts.

Once upon a time, people did not need scapegoats for their or their nation’s problems.  They did not villainize based on first impressions or political agendas.

Once upon a time, people did not rush to judgment but instead waited for facts and evidence which they then weighed to arrive at their own well-thought-out decision.  They did not simply repeat conclusions delivered to them by others.

Once upon a time, people paid attention to rules, laws, authorities.  They did not do as they pleased but rather were guided by laws created by the society in which they live.  They used non-violent civil disobedience to voice displeasure with laws or their outcomes rather than violent and destructive riots (which they call “peaceful protests).  They also believed that laws should be enforced equally, rather than based upon where the violator falls on the political spectrum.

Once upon a time, people cared about things bigger than just themselves – family, country, God.  These concepts helped them to live and join together for a common purpose and good of all, even when they might differ about their own personal beliefs.

Once upon a time, people believed that people were more than the color of their skin or their political party and they could treat one another as individuals rather than cardboard cutouts of this or that identity group.  They saw humanity as One, rather than a bunch of separate warring groups and their “Intersectionalities” constantly urged by those seeking power to hate one another.

Once upon a time, people were tolerant of their differences one from another.  They were able to live together despite those differences, form families, communities, and a country, and work together and with patience to ever better their society.

THAT WAS THEN.  THIS IS NOW.

Today, too many people expect that every moment of their waking (and sleeping too) life should be happy and enjoyable.  If it is not, there is no looking within, but rather an unending need to blame others for every problem.

At the same time, these people demand others take care of them, believe that everything that they want is simply a “human right” to which they are entitled to be provided – by the government (which really means by their neighbors who pay the taxes that will pay for their gifts), by those who have worked hard (and perhaps just been lucky in the face of life) and acquired more than the people making demands, by those who their political leaders have labeled as oppressors or other villains.

Today, too many people demand immediate gratification; they are without patience.  They are willing to jump to judgment on any issue without examination of facts or consequences of varying forms of actions.  When their initial judgment is proven to be in error, rather than admit as much they will double down with hate against those whose truth has proven them wrong.

Today, too many people think that laws are nothing but a suggestion at best.  If useful to attack someone or something they find displeasing they will go all in  with legal approaches, but if they find those laws displeasing, standing in the way of their pleasure or their desired actions and policies, then they will just ignore the rule of law (which, by the way, is a core foundation of this country, the disrespect and disobedience of which will surely destroy America as we know it).

Today, too many people do not care about God or country or family; rather, their focus is exclusively on themselves and their own pleasure.  That prohibits them from working with others for the better of all humanity; but that does not matter to these people whose primary, if not only concern is simply their own satisfaction.

Today, too many people think that everyone should think as they do, that all should march in lock step to their singular belief structures.  They easily label those who are different, whether in thought, appearance, class, or other distinction, to be something evil, something less than they are, something that one should have no remorse about destroying.

Today, too many people are caught up in a superficial self-absorption that is moving at rapid pace to destroy individuality, individual freedom, family, country, society, and ultimately the world.

WE ARE ON THE WRONG TRACK - CAN WE CHANGE TRAINS?

"Train" seems an appropriate metaphor since Joe Biden loves to use the train as his symbol.  He wanted us to switch to his train in 2020, it promised a good ride for everyone, a ride full of love, peace, and happiness. 

That was a lie.  Indeed, one of the first things we learned about Joe the conductor is that he is a pathological liar. He has told lies about every major policy action of his administration:  Afghanistan; Inflation; the “infrastructure” acts, their cost, their content, their intent; taxes and the middle class; illegals in this country; the border; his opposition; his interactions with school unions and CRT; he and his family’s relations with foreign oligarchs; his travel; his health; his Vice President; his appointees; the economy; US independence from foreign oil and other needs; Coronavirus; and many many others.

Even when he makes a statement that is false and the proof of that falsity is placed squarely before him, Biden nonetheless doubles down on the lie rather than admitting his mistake.  Then he begins finger pointing to set the blame and responsibility anywhere but on himself.

Our conductor is not only a liar, he has no respect for the rule of law.  He repeatedly proclaims guilt and innocence (e.g. the border agents & allegations of whipping that were proven false; calling Rittenhouse a white supremacist and murderer before any trial).  He ignores law and court rulings that contradict his position (e.g. going ahead with the OSHA vaccine mandates even after a Federal appellate court declared this overbroad and unconstitutional).  

Indeed, making judgements in several politically sensitive cases before or during trial removes the jury’s duty, obligation, and right to make such decisions, as well as very possibly affecting the outcome.  Doing what he wants despite the law and legal processes is authoritarian behavior that is a clear attack on democracy and its rule of law.

Our conductor Biden also has problems following laws of his professed religion that he doesn’t like or which are not politically convenient for him.  That is a problem between he and his God; nonetheless, it does give us further refection of his true character.

There is a selfish, “let them eat cake”, attitude within this administration and its supporters as they suggest that in light of the huge inflation that it would be good for our health to simply eat less.  Tell that one to the mother of a couple of teenage boys whose food bill has nearly doubled along with the gas she needs to buy to get to the grocery store and to her job (if she still has one) where her paycheck buys less due to higher prices across the board along with higher taxes.  And with what little spending power she may have left, she has to deal with empty shelves due to supply chain issues - issues that our conductor Biden tells us are actually good for us and the economy.

Our conductor also, rather than giving us a ride of unity and peace, is dividing us into different cars based not only on external identity characteristics and political beliefs, but also on our core beliefs and values.  Not the gentle, kind “Uncle Joe” as was promised, our conductor is full of hate for all who do not agree with him and his policies. 

It is possible that there are those today who are fine with all of the above, those who, because they are not personally affected by any of the above (YET!) ignore what is going on or simply accept it.  These are the people who are helping our conductor, shoveling the coal (or the clean new energy) into the engine, allowing our conductor to keep us on his track.

This train is chugging along at a faster and faster pace.  It is headed for a crash. 

If this were a country and not a train, we would call that conductor authoritarian and anti-democratic.  Oh, wait, it is a country and that conductor is our president.  And he is moving with enormous speed to destroy America and society as we know it.

WE NEED TO GET OFF AND FIND ANOTHER TRAIN.

First step:  the majority need to admit that they were bamboozled by the brochure and picked the wrong train. ( If they still think they are on the right track they may want to get their heads out of the sand or listen to something other than CNN, or they are simply completely self-absorbed without concern for the society around them).  

It’s hard to admit mistakes, but if they are to be corrected, that is the first step.

Nest step:  the majority need to stop blindly accepting what they are told - by the President, by the politicians, by the media.  Everyone needs to instead start asking for all the facts, questioning those facts, considering conclusions and their consequences, and making up their own minds.

Next step:  the people need to speak up and do so civilly as a democracy allows and requires.  Speak to friends, but also to leaders and politicians.  Make everyone's' voices heard.  Ask the questions that need asking of the people who will be making the decisions that will ultimately affect the lives of all of us.

Next step:  become educated about our government and our political system.  Read the constitution.  Read about the three branches of government – who each is and what each’s role is and what are the limitations on each.  Understand how the three branches serve as a necessary system of checks and balances on one another.  Learn this from an objective standpoint, not from someone with a biased political agenda.

Next step:  Vote.  Not based on party.  Not based on what one is told.  Based upon investigation of the individual candidates, their role within their party, the role of the seat they are seeking within our system of government.  Understand what things that role can affect, how the individual candidates will carry out their role, and the effect that person’s decisions will have.

Begin your education today.  Consider what sort of train you want to be on.  Every election is an opportunity to change trains, but in order to choose wisely you must be prepared with knowledge and the ability to think critically about what you are told.  That preparation cannot wait until the trains are in, or about to leave, the station.  It is up to all of us how our the story of our journey ends.

Ideology & Acceptance or Inquiry & Freedom

In 2004, NCSU Emeritus History Professor R. Slatta created a chart that captures the contrasts between Ideology and Inquiry:

As one can see from the above, the characteristics of ideology and inquiry are mutually exclusive opposites.  Nonetheless, most of humanity entertain characteristics of each, as does society and its politicians.  Yet, while in different situations we may emphasize more of one or the other,  when one becomes exclusively dominant problems arise.

When ideology completely takes over and blots out critical thinking as well as the values and principles that allow us to navigate the opposing forms of behavior and thought, then we are in trouble – we lose the ability to navigate, to keep both in check as needed, and to understand when ideology rather than those core values are guiding us.

When a country’s politicians become ideologues rather than representatives and issue solvers, then our country is in severe peril.

Politicians have always stood for certain issue or policy positions.  Their attempts to resolve issues according to their preferred policy perspective has always required navigation between the ideological and the rational.  Yet underlying the persuasive acts in favor of their particular issue resolution, there was a touchstone built on the history, core values and beliefs of the country.  That touchstone allowed the partisan politicians to find ways of coming together to further the best interests of the country as well as to prevent them from becoming blinded by pure ideology.

Not so much today.  Today we have not partisan politicians but ideologues.  You can recognize them by their hypocrisy as well as the polarization they (usually intentionally) create.  When a partisan politician cares about his or her country, he or she will be willing to compromise positions for the good of the country.  But an ideologue is “someone who theorizes; an often blindly partisan advocate of a particular ideology.”  The typical ideologue is uncompromising and dogmatic.

The ideologue’s goal is to implant a particular ideology in everyone.  Yes, everyone.  That goal outweighs all else, including facts and rational thought and Truth.  The narrative becomes all important as the narrative is used to assimilate everyone into the ideologue’s ideology and to demean and create enemies of those who will not be swayed – those who choose to think for themselves. 

This is how today we so often see politicians and their followers to be inconsistent and hypocritical in their statements and actions, why the positions of the Left actually contradict many traditional liberal positions and values.  Ideologues do not have a solid issue position but rather a position that those who are not with them are always wrong (even if they hold a position that the ideologue has advocated for, the ideologue will now take the opposite stand). 

The ideologue politicians of today have lost sight of who and what a politician is.  They have lost sight of their role as simply a go-between for the people and their government.  Having lost sight of that touchstone built upon an understanding of our country, its values, and its democracy,  absolute and complete installation of their ideology has become their primary if not their only goal.  And their own power becomes imperative to them because they believe only they can keep the ideological order that they choose to implement.

What the successful ideologue ultimately does is destroy freedom.  If one is going to create and control a successful ideology then one must keep those whom one controls from thinking for themselves.  In the ideal ideological world, everyone must be the same in every way (the Left’s equity which is in no way equality).   Except of course those in power who make the decisions for everyone else.

That is not the structure upon which America was created and which has allowed her to become the great country that she has become.  That is the structure that will destroy America (and already is doing so as the ideologues gain more and more control). 

An ideologue is both more and less than a partisan.  More, because they are often more passionate and more persuasive, and even often receive more misplaced applause for their inability to bend and compromise.  Yet they are less than a partisan because their advocacy has no valid or constructive goal other than to advance their own ideology and power.

Ideologues exist on both sides of the political aisle.  Today, the rightist ideologues mostly push the traditional American ideology.  This is certainly far less dangerous to America than the progressive and socialist ideology of the Left, but it is not totally benign.

Anyone or group that pushes ideology rather than issue and problem solving is furthering an effort that avoids the individuality of thought.  It polarizes people until they become completely incapable of acting even in their own best interests let alone in the best interests of their community and country.  Worst of all, ideology destroys individual freedom.

Freedom requires thought, intellectual inquiry, critical thinking, creativity.  And these activities require freedom.  The ideologues would destroy both – the freedom and the activities upon which it thrives and which require freedom to thrive.  Ideology requires a uniformity void of individual thought and freedom.

America has created a place where Freedom and Intellectual Inquiry thrive.  This environment has allowed America to evolve and grow, to become a world power and a shining example to the rest of the world.  Right now, the ideologues on the Left are working to destroy all that. 

The Leftist ideology can be quite persuasive but, before giving in, the people of this country need to be sure they have exercised those skills of intellectual inquiry that we all possess.  Partisanship is a part of this country, but blind ideology is not.  The one helps us to grow, the other will kill us all.

Ostrich or Bolshevik?

I find it difficult to understand how many Americans still support President Biden and his Leftist agenda.  I guess they must be either ostriches or Bolsheviks.

Ostriches, with their heads in the sand, are unaware of the obvious going on around them which include, but are certainly not limited to, the following examples: 

• Suppression of free speech –  Testifying at a House hearing yesterday our Attorney General acknowledged during questioning that he, the DOJ, and the President consulted only with the teacher’s union and then put forth the memo requested by the union that essentially condemns parents who speak up at a school board meeting in opposition to the union policies and especially to the teaching of the racist CRT. The idea that such concerned parents might be called domestic terrorists certainly has a chilling effect on their ability to speak out no matter how much the AG tries to talk his way around it.
• Intimidation and cancelling of ideas not aligned with the Left – Includes inconsistent application of laws, demands that people embrace – not just tolerate - ideas (including such things as gender fluidity or necessity of 2-year-olds wearing masks) that are not supported by science or other civil necessity.
• Loss of privacy – the White House, allegedly to prevent IRS fraud by the rich, wants to have access to bank accounts with any transaction of over $600. Most people who work and have paychecks deposited, or who pay a mortgage will have transactions of that amount on a monthly basis and hence have their personal financial transactions open for government inspection.
• Economic disasters – Job reports falling well below expectations, gas prices at a seven-year high, inflation at a 30-year high and continuing to rise, food prices up along with costs of housing, energy, and other essentials, interest rates likely to increase. The economy is failing, and the middle class are the ones who will suffer most from its failure.
• Supply chain problems – meanwhile the Secretary of Transportation is on leave since August and has not left a specified point person in charge.
• International standing – plummeting. The Afghanistan pullout was a complete embarrassment and a huge hit to America’s reputation. China outpacing us with development and successful test of a hypersonic missile (made in part using US technology).
• Military and law enforcement – Afghanistan. Disrespect for military and police; focus on inclusion and equity rather than readiness
• Coronavirus – Cases continue to rise. Mandates eviscerate the idea of personal choice when the science behind vaccine and covid is still being discovered. Meanwhile Biden policies and mandates result in firing of essential workers, leaving them without jobs, pensions, etc, and the people whom they serve without service.
• The border – Migrant encounters at the border are at a 21 year high. The Biden administration has effectively created open borders. Children are living in overcrowded cages and are flown around the country in the middle of the night. Drug and child trafficking are up. Single adult males account for about 2/3 of the crossings. Migrants are released into the interior with only a request that they return for a hearing. The President says he has been too busy to visit the border, yet he has taken any number of vacations.
• Corruption and lack of transparency – run rampant in this White House. Questions are not answered or are answered with falsehoods. Investigations of possible corruption or unethical behavior are suppressed. Even the Attorney General himself refused to have evaluated the ethics of his involvement in the threat to parents about opposing CRT at school boards despite his association via son-in-law with a firm that benefits significantly from schools using CRT.
• Biden and his administration – blame everyone else for the problems, refusing to take responsibility for anything. Biden ignores the idea of rule of law when he does such things as judge border agents guilty when accused of whipping illegal border crossers, even when the evidence shows it didn’t happen. The Administration becomes more and more authoritarian every day. And, like other authoritarian governments, while they make many rules to govern every aspect of citizen’s lives, those rules are not applied to themselves. Also, like most authoritarian governments, they are intent upon silencing any opposition to their policies and their power.

Or Bolshevik?  If you are aware of the above and the many other problematic and authoritarian activities of this administration, but continue to support Biden’s policies, then perhaps you are a Bolshevik. 

Bolshevism (from Bolshevik) is a revolutionary Marxist current of political thought and political regime associated with the formation of a rigidly centralized, cohesive and disciplined party of social revolution, focused on overthrowing the existing capitalist state system, seizing power and establishing the "dictatorship of the proletariat".  It originally referred to Russian communists, but now the term is used more generally for those who support such views and policies.

I find it hard not to characterize most of the activity of Biden and the Left as intent upon overthrowing and totally changing what we call America.  Thus, those who support such activity can easily be termed Bolsheviks.

Actually, Russian President Vladimir Putin put it well earlier this week in a speech to the International Valdai Discussion Group in Sochi.  Whatever else you may think of Putin, as former KGB he understands revolution, communism, and communist suppression.  Here are some of the more relevant parts of his speech:

The advocates of so-called ‘social progress’ believe they are introducing humanity to some kind of a new and better consciousness. Godspeed, hoist the flags as we say, go right ahead. The only thing that I want to say now is that their prescriptions are not new at all. It may come as a surprise to some people, but Russia has been there already. After the 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks, relying on the dogmas of Marx and Engels, also said that they would change existing ways and customs and not just political and economic ones, but the very notion of human morality and the foundations of a healthy society. The destruction of age-old values, religion and relations between people, up to and including the total rejection of family (we had that, too), encouragement to inform on loved ones – all this was proclaimed progress and, by the way, was widely supported around the world back then and was quite fashionable, same as today. By the way, the Bolsheviks were absolutely intolerant of opinions other than theirs.

 

This, I believe, should call to mind some of what we are witnessing now. Looking at what is happening in a number of Western countries, we are amazed to see the domestic practices, which we, fortunately, have left, I hope, in the distant past. The fight for equality and against discrimination has turned into aggressive dogmatism bordering on absurdity, when the works of the great authors of the past – such as Shakespeare – are no longer taught at schools or universities, because their ideas are believed to be backward. The classics are declared backward and ignorant of the importance of gender or race. In Hollywood memos are distributed about proper storytelling and how many characters of what colour or gender should be in a movie. This is even worse than the agitprop department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

 

Countering acts of racism is a necessary and noble cause, but the new ‘cancel culture’ has turned it into ‘reverse discrimination’ that is, reverse racism. The obsessive emphasis on race is further dividing people, when the real fighters for civil rights dreamed precisely about erasing differences and refusing to divide people by skin colour. . . .

 

In a number of Western countries, the debate over men’s and women’s rights has turned into a perfect phantasmagoria. Look, beware of going where the Bolsheviks once planned to go – not only communalising chickens, but also communalising women. One more step and you will be there.

 

Zealots of these new approaches even go so far as to want to abolish these concepts altogether. Anyone who dares mention that men and women actually exist, which is a biological fact, risk being ostracised. “Parent number one” and “parent number two,” “'birthing parent” instead of “mother,” and “human milk” replacing “breastmilk” because it might upset the people who are unsure about their own gender. I repeat, this is nothing new; in the 1920s, the so-called Soviet Kulturtraegers also invented some newspeak believing they were creating a new consciousness and changing values that way. And, as I have already said, they made such a mess it still makes one shudder at times.

. . . .

Again, for us in Russia, these are not some speculative postulates, but lessons from our difficult and sometimes tragic history. The cost of ill-conceived social experiments is sometimes beyond estimation. Such actions can destroy not only the material, but also the spiritual foundations of human existence, leaving behind moral wreckage where nothing can be built to replace it for a long time.

I do encourage you to read the entire speech which can be found here:  LINK  

I wonder if in 1917 the Russian ostriches and Bolsheviks knew what they were in for in the “brave new world” they either were creating or allowing to happen via their indifference.  The Bolshevik dream gave them Stalin’s reign of terror and decades of living with hunger, hardship, and fear in the fully government-controlled society.  They lived without freedom until, even when communism fell, they found they had forgotten how to be free.

Our Bolsheviks actively work towards a complete reconfiguration of America.  But their touted new world is not a new idea and it is more frightening than enlightened.  Nonetheless, their actions and support for Leftist policy tells us this is what they indeed seek to create.

But our ostriches, with heads lost in the sand, are supporting this revolution as well.  If the ostriches would raise their heads and look around, they might see what is really happening and hopefully speak out against it.  Indifference is a vote and a win for the Left and ultimately for the tragedies and horrors that come with their new world order.

What’s In a Name?

The “Women’s March” took place this past weekend.  I wish they wouldn’t call it that.  It was not a march for women but a march for abortion rights.  It advertised itself as a “Rally for Abortion Justice.” It took clear political positions on both the Texas abortion law and on Roe v. Wade.  Whether women’s rights include abortion rights is a divisive political question and one cannot necessarily call a march for one a march for the other.

Calling this a “women’s march” implies that it represents and is for all women.  Yet it does not and is not.  Not all women think (or march) in lock step.  Women are individuals capable of their own thought and of a vast diversity of views.  That includes views about abortion.  If the march is going to take only one position on abortion, then it cannot possibly also be an all-inclusive “women’s march.”

               Reproductive Rights

The women’s march, like many who are pro-abortion, likes to couch its arguments in terms of women’s reproductive rights.  But they assume that all women agree on the definition of “reproductive rights” and that those rights must include the right to terminate a separate and unique individual that is, based upon basic human biology, implanted within a female womb for approximately 9 months of its life.   I am unaware of where, other than in the arguments of pro-abortionists, it has been unquestionably established that a woman unequivocally has the right to terminate the life of that other being, or, if she does, that the right is somehow part of her own reproductive rights.

“Reproduction” is defined as “the production of offspring by a sexual or asexual process” and is further explained as “the combination of reproductive cells from two individuals.”  Now, just on its face, “reproduction” does not include the termination of something already reproduced, so how exactly is abortion a part of a woman’s reproductive rights?

A woman’s capability of participating in the creation of a child certainly involves a woman’s reproductive health.  Reproductive health, or sexual health, denotes the health of a woman’s reproductive system during all her life stages.”  This is the woman’s reproductive system.  It has nothing to do with the separate life of the unborn child. 

               The Science

Current science tells us that from the moment of conception a unique individual exists with a specific and unique genetic structure that is different from the mother, the father, and all other individuals.  Science also tells us this unique individual is a human because of the chromosomal makeup and that this individual is a life form because its cells grow.

The American College of Pediatrics states: “The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization.  At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature.”

               The “Right to Choose”

If the “right to choose” is to choose an abortion, then abortion is being equated with birth control.  But there is a key difference:  a woman who uses birth control is making a decision about her own body and her own reproductive health, including whether or not to put herself in a position where she might become pregnant; in contrast, a woman who chooses an abortion is making a choice not only about her own life but about the life of a separate and innocent human being.

Let’s look at some basic biology.  The female of our species becomes impregnated when the sperm of a male unites with the egg of the female.  This can occur via a sexual act or via some form of artificial insemination.  An adult female who engages in sexual activity with a male can understand that one of the consequences of that act is that she might become pregnant.  She can try to avoid this consequence by using various forms of birth control up to and including abstinence. 

So how does this fit in with the woman’s “right to choose”?  She certainly has the right to choose what to do with her own body, including her own reproductive system.  Putting aside such things as rape and incest which present separate questions in the abortion debate, a woman has the right to choose to engage in sex.  And, just as when we are faced with any choice, the woman has the responsibility to understand and accept the possible consequences of her actions, one of which is that she may find herself pregnant and responsible for a new and unique life for at least the approximately 9 months that it lives in her womb.

Women can understand these things.  They are capable of making an informed decision about their own body and the consequences that engaging in sex may have upon that body and their lifestyle.  But that right does not necessarily extend to the right to make life or death decisions for the unborn child.

One either does or does not accept that women can make choices and handle consequences.  One who does not accept that has very little respect for women.

I do not believe women are so helpless or naïve that they cannot make a decision pre-abortion (and pre-sex) that would negate any need for an abortion.  Those who agree that women are strong and capable of making clear choices related to their own reproductive health and see abortion as nonetheless a necessary option are equating abortion with birth control.

But abortion is not just another form of birth control.  It is the termination of a separate human life.  An innocent life.  We usually call that murder.  A woman can choose what to put into her own body – food, medicine, a man’s penis.  But on what basis can this right extend to killing a separate individual that her own choices and human biology placed within her womb for the first months of its life? 

It is both hypocritical and demeaning to believe that a woman’s choice over her own body prior to impregnation is insufficient yet she must be given the choice of life or death for a new, separate, and unique individual that her own choices have placed in her care.

               It’s About the Unborn Child

If one be fair and honest one would acknowledge that this march, like the abortion debate generally, is not about women but is about the unborn.

Abortion is the termination of a human life.  Pro-abortionists would rather you not focus on that.  Hence the refocusing on “women’s rights.”  

Some women may believe that a woman whose choice resulted in her pregnancy should nonetheless be able to escape those consequences by killing the life inside her.  It is their right to hold that view and to argue that women should have that right.  But other women disagree.  Hence, the pro-abortion march is not a “women’s” march at all, but a march about the rights or lack thereof of an unborn child.

That new and unique life seems to get lost in the pro-abortion rhetoric.  It is an innocent human.  Who speaks for it?  Why do pro-abortionists believe it should be the woman alone who perhaps finds spending 9 months nurturing that new life to be inconvenient?  Who gives her the right to choose whether that new and innocent life lives or dies? (And by the way, this new life might very well be a female – a woman for whose rights a “women’s” march should be advocating.)

Science tells us that from conception there is a new human.  A human entitled to a healthy environment in which to grow.  For nine months that environment constitutes the womb.  That is the new human’s home until after birth when that human also has the right to continue to grow and develop.  The question is, why does the woman have the right to remove this living growing human from the only environment in which it can survive just because that environment happens to be within her female biology?

A Guardian ad Litem is often appointed in cases involving the rights and care of children or incapacitated individuals who cannot speak for themselves.  The Guardian’s job is to represent and speak for the child or the incapacitated, to look out for their best interests.  In the question of abortion, the mother (along with perhaps the father, doctor, or others) is asserting her desire and her rights – the actions that are in the mother’s best interest.  But where is the Guardian who will speak for the rights and life of the unborn child that the mother seeks to kill?  Who will speak for the best interests of the child?

 Not a Women’s March

The female of the species joins with a male in the reproductive act.  Human biology dictates that it is the female that carries a new child during the first nine months of its life.  Abortion is a way of ending that life.  While all women have the same role in those first 9 months of a child’s life, they do not all agree on the question of abortion, or the rights of the unborn child.

Certainly, some women can and do advocate for abortion along with abortion funding.  Some advocate for such rights up to and even shortly after birth.  Others would put more limitations on abortions.  

But many other women are anti-abortion.  And, like the pro-abortion advocates, those against abortion have varying views.  Some are against all abortion, some would allow or even favor it for cases of rape, incest, maternal health, or similar exceptions and some would only limit it after a certain time period in the pregnancy. 

Some women prefer to follow religious teachings, something that also varies among religions and denominations.  Some prefer to follow current science which tells us that the fetus is a unique human living in vitro.  Not all women see abortion as some form of birth control affecting only a woman’s reproductive system.

Women hold many diverse views about abortion.  If the Women’s March were really that – a women’s march and not a pro-abortion march, all the views would be welcome and represented.  It would acknowledge that women are perfectly capable of thinking for themselves and that their ability to do so results in a number of diverse views about abortion.

The Women’s March is not that.  It is a Pro-Abortion March.  Perhaps the marchers believe they can be more successful in their cause if they claim it is for women.  But it is not.  If anything, it is anti the very equality of women that they would proclaim.  The rights advocated by the pro-abortionists both exclude and go beyond “women’s” rights while excluding consideration of the rights of the unborn child. 

The label “Women’s March” serves as a cover for the far more difficult issue of the rights of the unborn.  So please, stop calling it the “Women’s March.”  Be brave and honest enough to call it what it is:  a denial of the science that abortion is indeed the killing of a new and unique human being.