Welcome to Authoritarian Socialism

 They tried to make a Constitutional crisis out of the fake Russian collusion story that they themselves made up.  They continue to distort and carefully select facts in an attempt to turn the January 6^th demonstration in which some entered beyond open spaces in the Capital into a Constitutional crisis.  They claim that governors who assert their rights to protect their people from unprecedented & overwhelming illegal migration across our borders are creating a Constitutional crisis.  Indeed, they claim that if Donald Trump were to run again for President (something that they see as a real threat to their power) it would be a Constitutional crisis.

Yet they are the ones creating the real Constitutional crisis.

“They” are the Left, the power-hungry Democrats, the Biden Administration.  It is they who have forgotten that their elected power is not unlimited and that it ultimately belongs to the people, not them.  And the more they get away with, the more boldly authoritarian they become.

Today the Left, the Biden Administration’s DOJ, did something unprecedented in our democracy’s politics and in the law in general.  They, without announcement or reasonable cause, entered and searched the home of a former president.  But this is not the first time the DOJ has used its power to threaten and terrorize political opponents of the Left without taking similar, indeed without taking any, action against verified wrongdoing of their supporters.

These are the actions of an authoritarian regime.

As premier Constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz stated, the acts of the Democrats are “very scary. They’re very frightening to any civil libertarian. Whether you’re a Democrat or Republican; whether you come from New York or the middle of the country, you should be frightened by efforts to try to create crimes out of nothing.” (See his comments on the Trump raid HERE) 

But it’s not just the weaponization of the DOJ and other law enforcement by Biden and the Left that creates a Constitutional crisis.  It is also this Administration and the Left’s power grab as they build government ever bigger while making the general populace not only ever poorer but also more dependent on that government and hence upon the continuing power of the Left.  They are becoming an authoritarian regime as they work to destroy our democracy and build a socialist country that, in line with socialism historically, ultimately creates not hope but despair for its people (except of course the power elite).

We can all see it happening in front of us with our own eyes.  Too many of us choose not to look.  The rest of us see what is happening and seem helpless to stop it.  So, welcome to our new America – built back better as an authoritarian socialist state in which the people have no voice, no freedom, and no resources other than what the government chooses to allow them.

  

                                        

Thinking about Rules

ONE:    Really, they just don’t understand how our democracy works.

Intensified since the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade, Democrats assert their mantra that “Republicans may say they want small government, but the evidence shows they want the government to control every aspect of our lives, including our personal health decisions.” 

No, they just don’t get it.  Roe was an example of a government body usurping the rights of the people to make such decisions.  It is the Democrats who seem to worship such usurpation.

What these Democrats don’t seem to understand is that when we now see state legislative bodies made up of legislators elected by the people drafting and passing statutes regarding abortion (or anything else for that matter), it is not the government imposing control on the people.  It is the people, through their own elected representatives, exercising their voices and controlling their own lives.  

It seems that too many have forgotten that when government acts, when it passes a statute that regulates some aspect of our lives by permitting, mandating, or forbidding some action, it is the voice of the people speaking through their elected representatives.  It seems that the Democrats simply don’t understand that our government is a representative democracy in which the people are indeed their own governors by way of their elected representatives. 

The Democrats are confusing a people’s government such as ours with an authoritative form of government in which the governing body indeed imposes its own will upon the people.  And, when the Democrats demand that courts or the Executive branch create rules, mandates, requirements, and prohibitions what they are really demanding is an authoritarian regime that truly ignores the will of the people.

TWO:    Civilized society requires rules from a respected authority.

We see today’s ruling class elite creating rules without regard to the voice of the people.  We see a lot of behavior in the realm of “rules for thee but not for me” as those in power (along with those whom they favor) assert their right to seemingly do as they please.

This got me thinking about rules, authority, and, why do we all seem to find rules that we feel are acceptable to ignore.  Personally, I am strict in my belief that one must follow the rule of law – no exceptions, no emotional or “narrative” excuses.  The law must apply equally to everyone.

I feel much the same about academic rules, both from the perspective of a student and a teacher – no exceptions.  The requirements for an A should be the same for all as should the requirements to achieve various educational milestones.  No excuse.  No late papers.  Simply do the work and let the work be judged by objective criteria.

But when it comes to rules that are such things as directions for building something, whether it be a piece of furniture, or a sewing pattern, or a recipe, I feel no such need to follow those rules precisely.  Indeed, I take pleasure in deviating somewhat to make it easier or to personalize the project.

I have a friend that is a Biblical scholar who can quote probably every rule in the Bible and believes all should be followed precisely.  A Rabbi friend can similarly recite the 613 mitzvot referred to in the Torah (248 Positive Commandments (do's) and 365 Negative Commandments (do not's)).  These address both religious and worldly behaviors.

Less religious people, even though familiar with the Bible, probably are less inclined to be as strict with themselves about following such Biblical mandates than are the deeply and fully committed.

Which rules one follows in large part likely depends on whom one sees as a legitimate authority figure to whom one grants respect and deference and a certain amount of control.  And the reverence one grants to God or to a recipe in one’s personal private life probably makes little difference to other people. 

But the laws that govern the society as a whole must be followed or there will simply be chaos, which is what we are seeing today. 

For the members of society to follow a set of rules, the individuals making up that society must respect the rule maker.  In American democracy, the rule-maker is ultimately the people.  It is they, through their representatives, who develop the statutes and regulations that guide us and keep our civilization civil. 

There is a large body within our population that no longer respects the people as the rule maker.  There are those in power who think they know better.  There are those both in power and in the population as a whole who do not understand the basic civics of our country and as part of that lack of understanding do not understand who it is that is making the rules.  They blame government for rules they don’t like, not understanding that in the end government is not some abstract body but, in America, it is the people.  But not understanding that, they hold no respect for that abstract rule making body.

Psychology will tell you that we all have a self-critical conscience, often referred to as the super-ego, that reflects social standards learned from parents and teachers.  It is that self-regulating conscience, instilled in us as children, that helps us to follow rules rather than break them.  But if that conscience, that respect for the rules as well as their creator, is not instilled in us as children, then one will not feel the need to follow the rules that govern our societal behavior.

We are not teaching respect for our rules because too many do not understand what they are or by whom they are created.  Without an accurate understanding of our American democracy, respect for that democracy and the rules it creates is not possible. 

Today, much of the lack of respect stems from ignorance, but there are also those in power whose disrespect of, along with disinformation about, our government and its rules is fully intentional.  Either way, we cannot expect respect for our country, our society, and indeed our civilization until this is corrected.  To paraphrase Aretha Franklin:  R-E-S-P-E-C-T Find out what it means to we, or you might walk in and find America gone. 

Think about what the rule of law means to you.

And Therein Lies the Problem

Today I read a news piece in which women were interviewed for their feelings about the National Education Association’s proposal to replace the word “mother” with “birthing parent” so as to be “more inclusive” of trans-males.  One woman responded:  "I’m fine with that. Anything to make people feel comfortable."(emphasis added.) 

And therein lies the underlying problem of many of our current societal woes.  Don’t worry if we destroy our entire society, following the whims of a few and ignoring truth and science, just so long as everyone feels comfortable. 

The problem is that one person’s comfort can easily become another person’s pain.  When the selfish need to feel good is more important than concern for truth or one’s fellow human, then life becomes meaningless and civilization dies.

How far is the woman above, or anyone who worships the god of feel-good, willing to take the pursuit of pleasure?  We already know that many are willing to put their own pursuit of what they believe is happiness above the right to life of the unborn. 

We see those who are fulfilled by loudly venting their hatred in public places, chasing those with whom they disagree from places such as restaurants.   Many such incidents occurred against individuals who were in the Trump administration, and now there is a concerted effort to create such incidents against Supreme Court Justices, including a Leftist organization paying for tips when a Justice is spotted in public, all with the tacit support of the Biden White House.    

Such behavior may make the screamers “feel comfortable” but what about the diners?  When Justice Kavanaugh was forced to leave a restaurant this week, the restaurant owner noted, “Honorable Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh and all of our other patrons at the restaurant were unduly harassed by unruly protestors while eating dinner at our Morton’s restaurant. Politics, regardless of your side or views, should not trample the freedom at play of the right to congregate and eat dinner. There is a time and place for everything. Disturbing the dinner of all of our customers was an act of selfishness and void of decency.” 

Yet those doing the harassing were doing something that simply felt good to them – made them “feel comfortable.”  What about the individual who is charged with attempted murder of Justice Kavanaugh – is that Ok if the attempt makes the individual feel good?

“Void of decency” is a good way to describe where this worship of self-comfort has and continues to lead us.  Various groups now openly engage in behaviors that only recently were considered depraved.  Children, who scientifically do not become sexual beings until puberty, are being taught about things like sexual pleasure in kindergarten while things like pedophilia and child pornography are becoming more acceptable as “an unchangeable sexual orientation.”  This may make those who engage in such practices “feel comfortable” but what about the children who are the victims of their depraved pursuit of comfort? 

And then there is the current practice of encouraging expressions of “gender dysphoria” in children too young to suffer it as a basis for permanently interfering with a child’s development by the use of hormone and other “therapies”.   This may make some adults “feel comfortable” but there are too many statements by adults who were treated this way as children that show us this did not and does not make those children comfortable.

Where does one who worships the concept that everyone must “feel comfortable” draw the line when that comfort causes pain to others?  It is a slippery slope.  For if one’s own comfort is prime, and if that comfort causes discomfort to another, then to fulfill  the primary goal one must disregard the life that is in the way of that goal.  If you can murder a preborn child because you think doing so makes you more comfortable, why not murder the two-year-old for the same reason or the senile parent who no longer recognizes you?  Why not dispose of anyone who stands in the way of your being “more comfortable”? 

Wild animals will kill for their own comfort.  When “feeling comfortable” becomes the primary goal, we devolve fully into our instinctive animal nature.  We lose respect for life. 

Humans are far more than the innate animal instincts that are a part of us all.  We are capable of far deeper fulfillment and have far more potential than the superficial happiness that our culture surrounds us with and encourages us to seek.  It is a mistake to make the Self a god and its gratification one’s guiding principle.  Common decency demands more, our souls demand more, and civilization itself requires more.

Religion has always taught us this.  Perhaps we should look to those gods, rather than the god of self-comfort.

 

Our Core is in the Constitution

When people, on either side of the political aisle, begin demanding that everyone agree to a particular value or virtue system, or claim that rules of law are really establishing religion, I throw up my hands in despair that so few really understand what our democracy is or how it works.

Contrary to what many would have you believe, America is a secular country.  Although built on Judeo-Christian values, a cornerstone of our democracy is that this country would not establish or mandate religious beliefs and would allow its citizens to follow whatever faith they chose, including no faith at all. 

Our Constitution envisions our government of/for/by the people as being based on common values that may or may not belong to a religion; the key is that the rules that the people through their representatives enact are secular and apply to all regardless of individual beliefs.   It is the people who create the rights and the rules.

Thus, when SCOTUS (a panel of 9 unelected individuals) usurped the people’s power and declared a right that previously had not existed, they were wrong.  It was the people’s right to grant or not grant an abortion right and to determine any limitations on such right.  Regardless of the Justices’ personal beliefs (many are indeed Catholic), in Dobbs they correctly put the people in their rightful Constitutional position to determine what, if any, right to abortion should exist. 

Our Constitution also requires the people’s understanding that a pluralism of beliefs means that no one will get all that they would like and that everyone must be tolerant of the beliefs of others.

Religious virtues often underly a secular government

A free society’s laws and government reflect the beliefs, values, and mores of that particular society.  As a society evolves, as its values modify or change, so will its governing rules.  Those rules will, however, continue to reflect the voice of all of the people.

It is in authoritarian governments that there is less likely a distinction between a mandated belief structure and mandates for societal behaviors.  That is because in such societies the people are not free to think and believe as they wish; rather, the governing body will mandate thought, belief, and behavior. (As an aside, it is really impossible to force someone to hold a particular belief; a government can mandate behavior that would reflect that belief, but there is no guarantee that a person who follows those mandates actually holds the desired belief.)

Most religions, regardless of their specific beliefs, emphasize something greater than oneself.  Religions, through their core documents (Bible, Koran, etc.), establish rules and sets of values.  The reasons for an individual to subscribe to the virtues of their religion include promised rewards for such virtuous behavior that are not immediate and perhaps not even during this life.

Concepts such as “do onto others as you would have them do onto you” and “treat your neighbor as yourself” appear in some form in most religions.  These concepts encourage one to think beyond oneself.  Such thinking is essential for a society to survive. 

It is these sorts of religious values that become reflected in the government and the society that any group of people create, whether it be a family, a recreational club, or a country.  Unless a society is established as a theocracy that will use the religious rules for the governing rules of the community and require all to be of the same faith, there will essentially be two sets of rules:  the religious rules that will guide the faithful, and the secular rules, generally reflecting those religious virtues, that will guide the secular society.

America’s secular government has Judeo-Christian underpinnings

This country was founded based on Judeo-Christian rules because that was the foundation of the culture of its people.  Those values are key underpinnings in the Constitution and the other secular rules of our society.  But this country is not a theocracy.  It is secular.

Judeo-Christian beliefs, like most religions, place emphasis on something greater than oneself.  As long as most of the American people held similar values the rules of our society worked.  Some held those values because of their religious faith, some simply held those values as their guidelines for living.  But if one does not believe, for whatever reason, in those common values, then rules based on the values will become meaningless.

We really have two guiding sets of rules that are in many ways intertwined, but in the end are separate because of the brilliance of our Founders.  The problem is that the secular rules are based upon the culture and society of those who create them.  One needs to understand these values and generally subscribe to them to understand our secular system and to subscribe to it.  And therein lies the problem.

Houston, we have a problem

Today we are facing a situation in which the underlying beliefs and values of the American people are not in accord, are not even similar, and while the core beliefs of some remain reflected in our governmental structure and laws, for others that structure and those laws are completely foreign to or at odds with their belief and value systems.

Today, fewer and fewer people hold faith in the Judeo-Christian God, or in any Greater Being for that matter.  Therefore, they are also far less likely to subscribe to the rules and mores of a secular society that is based on those beliefs.

Today much of our culture is focused not on something greater but instead revolves around the Self and its need for immediate gratification.  How we got to that point requires volumes to understand with lots of blame to go around, but we are indeed there.  As such, our secular rules and institutions that are based on a bigger picture and concern for the greater good are in large part meaningless to many. 

Many of the Left and the Woke, in satisfying their own immediate desires, ignore rules that interfere with those desires.  They see the values underlying those rules as antiquated and not relevant to themselves.  And, because they think everyone should accept what they do and the values and beliefs underlying their actions, they impose their needs on everyone else, demanding that anyone with conflicting beliefs give them up or be silenced.  Many of the conservative and religious Right also demand that everyone accept and believe as they do. 

The lack of tolerance in our nation today is astounding and potentially fatal. People on all sides misunderstand their place in society as well as the core rules of our democracy and perhaps most importantly the tolerance that it demands.

This is not really a political problem, though it plays out in our politics.  This is really a problem of the soul.  But politicians and those interested in their own power use this value vacuum to their own advantage.  And in so doing they display their ignorance of and disdain for our democracy.

Do we have a core shared value?

Before we can fix our problems we must understand that any culture, any society, must be based upon shared beliefs.  Right now we have two competing belief systems that are not compatible.  Unless we (re)discover a core principle that we all share, we are probably done as the great nation we once were.

Can we exist with very different underlying life concepts and values? The Constitution would direct us to say yes.  It allows for diverse views, for the beliefs of all to be heard and prohibits the federal government from suppressing those diverse beliefs and views.  But to do this requires a tolerance, a willingness to accept that others may not be like us, may not think like us, and never will.  While each of us may want to live our life one way, we must accept that some may disapprove of that and choose to live their lives in other ways. 

We must be able to tolerate and accept the true principle of diversity in a pluralistic society.  We must accept, indeed applaud, that not everyone will agree, that we will not always win our arguments, and that we cannot force our values upon others.

But what about when those values are in direct conflict?  Again, our Constitution guides us.  It gives to the people, through their representatives, the decisions of what laws we need to govern all of us in our interactions and behaviors; we decide what rules we need to keep the peace while being tolerant of those who would behave and believe differently than us.  We decide how we can maintain order without mandating beliefs.  We have done that for nearly 250 years and we should not give up without trying to continue.

But people need to understand that even if their personal belief is that Self is God, they must co-exist with others and that in an orderly and peaceful society they will not always be able to have instant (and sometimes never will have) gratification of all their needs and desires. 

Back to the Constitution

If we consider the values of our Constitution, we will find that it can indeed sustain us and save America in the process.  But we need to understand what it is and what it is not. 

The Constitution grants us our freedom to be ourselves, the individuals whom we are meant to be, but only if we agree to have tolerance (not necessarily acceptance) for the different, contradictory, and opposing views of others.  Just as the federal government cannot create our rights and freedoms nor take them away, we must agree that we will not impose our views on others – explain them, yes; advocate for them, yes, but impose them as mandatory, no. 

We must agree not to relinquish our power to politicians, or others, who would use it to control us.  We must remember that our power lies in the voice of all the people, not in a political party, the press, or other powerful entities and not in only one viewpoint.  We must accept our power and the responsibilities that come with it.

Once we agree that we are different people with different beliefs, values, and backgrounds we can begin to work on common goals that benefit all of us.  But this requires an amount of selflessness that is not natural for many of us today.   We must agree that we will have concern for the greater good.

If our shared belief is in our Constitution and our people, then we will be fine.  But if we choose the selfish path that we are on, even our Constitution cannot save us, for selfishness cares nothing for anyone but one’s self. 

The Founders gave us a great gift, let us not destroy it but instead continue to use it to make our “more perfect union” more perfect every day.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE

An important theme seems to run through several recent Supreme Court decisions: that the power in this country belongs to WE THE PEOPLE.  Too many seem to have forgotten this and simply stood by as various governmental bodies seized more and more power that is not rightfully theirs.  The Court did much to right the ship of state in its decisions released this month.

• The Court did not evade its own usurpation of the people’s power.  It acknowledged that it had overstepped its authority when it created an unstated constitutional right out of thin air.  It reversed its error and returned the power to create a right to abortion to the states and the people where it rightfully belongs. (Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization)
• On its last day of this term, the Court ruled that governmental agencies (in this case the EPA) do not have expansive, unlimited power to make environmental mandates absent a grant of that power to the agency by the Congress (which is the voice of the people). (West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency)
• In ending President Trump’s remain in Mexico immigration policy, the Court noted that federal law allows such discretionary actions by the Executive.  Because such policy is discretionary, and because the people have chosen a different Executive, it follows that such policy or change in policy reflects the voice of the people. (Biden v. Texas)
• In deciding that a school coach has the right to kneel and pray following a game, the Court reminded us that we have the freedom to exercise religion and that it is not the job of governmental entities to seek out and deny such acts that are not intended to impose a particular religion on anyone.  The Court held that the Constitution neither mandates nor permits the government to suppress such religious expression.  That is, again the Court reminded us not only of our rights and the limitations on government to interfere with those rights, but also of the duty of those who live in a pluralistic society to be tolerant of the beliefs of others. (Kennedy v. Bremerton School District)
• The Court also held that Maine’s “nonsectarian” requirement for tuition assistance violated the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, again protecting the people’s right from government intrusion.  (Carson v. Makin)
• The Court held that representatives of North Carolina’s state House of Representatives and Senate could intervene in voter ID-law litigation.  As such, the people, through those representatives, will have their voices heard.  (Berger v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP)
• The Court held that a state firearm regulation requiring “proper cause” to carry, prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Here, the Court did as the Constitution expects and requires:  it protected the enumerated rights of the people from intrusion and limitation by the government. (New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen)

Of course the Court decided more than the above cases, and the summaries of those noted above are brief and simplified; all opinions contain far more detailed legal argumentation and reasoning as well as dissenting or concurring opinions that offer further commentary on the majority decision.

Do I, do most people, like the result of every case?  No.  But the Court's job is not to do what is popular but to read the Constitution and remind us of what it says and make sure that by following our Constitution and rule of law that we maintain our carefully constructed democracy.

I rejoice in the fact that at the end of this term the Court provided us with a number of opinions to remind us of the power structure in our government of/for/by the people.  The governmental institutions exist to serve us, not to control us.  We the people hold the power.  We have certain rights, some enumerated in the Constitution, some which we can ourselves create through our representatives and the political process.  But the rights are ours, not the government's to create, grant, or remove. 

Of course, the exercise of our power requires work.  While protests and demonstrations are a way of voicing opinions and desires in the public square, the way to make those desires a reality as a part of our government and our rule of law, is to work through our elected officials to shape our government.  That begins when we cast our vote.  It requires us to be informed of how our government and our political process works and to understand the ways in which we can exercise our voice.  It also requires us to be gracious when we do not get our way and to understand that we cannot have the diversity and pluralism that make this country great without also exercising tolerance of those with whom we disagree.

I am grateful to the Court for reminding us of these things.  I am grateful that the Framers were wise enough to include a non-political branch of government which can keep us focused on who and what we are and ease us back on course when we forget what our democracy is or how it works. 

I only wish that those who are attacking the Court for judgments the results of which they find displeasing, would understand what the Court’s role is and respect it.  How different the behavior of our current president from that of President Kennedy when faced with a decision not to his liking that prohibited prayer in public school.  The following is from President Kennedy’s News Conference on June 27, 1962:

 QUESTION: Mr. President, in the furor over the Supreme Court's decision on prayer in the schools, some members of Congress have been introducing legislation for Constitutional amendments specifically to sanction prayer or religious exercise in the schools. Can you give us your opinion of the decision itself, and of these moves of the Congress to circumvent it?

PRESIDENT KENNEDY: I haven't seen the measures in the Congress and you would have to make a determination of what the language was, and what effect it would have on the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has made its judgment, and a good many people obviously will disagree with it. Others will agree with it. But I think that it is important for us if we are going to maintain our Constitutional principle that we support the Supreme Court decisions even when we may not agree with them.

In addition, we have in this case a very easy remedy, and that is to pray ourselves and I would think that it would be a welcome reminder to every American family that we can pray a good deal more at home, we can attend our churches with a good deal more fidelity, and we can make the true meaning of prayer much more important in the lives of all of our children. That power is very much open to us.

I would hope that as a result of this decision that all American parents will intensify their efforts at home, and the rest of us will support the Constitution and the responsibility of the Supreme Court in interpreting it, which is theirs, and given to them by the Constitution.

If only our current President, our politicians, and all of our citizens would understand the great gift that we have in this country and that we have the Supreme Court to remind us when we forget.   These opinions should wake us not to fear but to joy in our rights and our responsibilities.  It is our duty to work constructively together through our elected representatives to create the rules that this great nation deserves.

I am both thankful and proud that I am a small part of our country’s legal system.  Like everyone, I do not always agree with the Supreme Court, but I do respect it.  And now that it has blatantly reminded us that we the people have the power, rather than disrespect or work to destroy this great institution I wish the people would understand that they do not need to destroy in order to simply seize the power that they already hold. 

Do we really have a culture of death?

Here’s what I don’t understand – why are so many folks upset that, following the overturning of Roe, there is no Constitutional right to kill babies?   I mean, OK, maybe some women have been brainwashed to believe they have this right, but I have to believe (hope?) that most women are more intelligent than that. 

I mean, most adults can still read, and reading reveals that nearly all credible science and medical professionals agree that life begins at conception and that the embryo and then fetus are human life forms and are alive.  Embryo, then fetus are the earliest stages, but there continue to be developing stages post birth.  Infancy is also an early stage of human development and yet, while a few people do believe post-birth abortion is acceptable I have to believe (hope?) that the vast majority are not OK with killing infants.

Recently I pointed out the scientific/medical position to a pro-abortionist.  The response:  "Did you think I wasn’t aware an embryo is a developing human? You’re stating the obvious and proving my point. It’s ‘developing’ - it’s a group of cells multiplying that develops into a human. A human that the majority of pro-lifers won’t care about the moment they’re born.”  Gosh, so much to unpack in this statement!

What is a Developing Human?

If a developing human is just a clump of cells, and if killing that clump of cells is OK, then we are all in danger.  We all reproduce cells daily.  A child’s brain continues developing long past birth.  Body tissues grow by increasing the number of cells that make them up. Cells in many tissues in the body divide and grow very quickly until we become adults. When we are adults, many cells mature and become specialized for their particular job in the body. (cancerresearchuk.org).  According to Scientific American, “About 330 billion cells are replaced daily, equivalent to about 1 percent of all our cells. In 80 to 100 days, 30 trillion will have replenished—the equivalent of a new you.”

The argument that you can kill a clump of developing cells is clearly disingenuous.  Moreover, even if one were to limit that killing to prebirth, it is hard to understand how anyone can accept unrestricted killing of a human entity (even a living clump of cells is an entity) when it has a unique DNA combination that is a legacy equally contributed from both parents, when it has a beating heart at 21 days after conception and a brain that at 6 weeks is at least partially developed and includes:  a forebrain/cerebrum, which controls certain brain functions , like thinking and problem-solving; a midbrain involved in processing visual and auditory information; and a hindbrain/cerebellum, which manages balance and coordination, as well as the medulla, which is the control center for the body's automatic activities, like blood pressure and heart rate.

Yes, the embryo and fetus are developing.  But so is the 6-month-old child, or the teenager, or the young adult, or even the octogenarian.  If one accepts killing a developing human, where exactly would one draw the line?

Pro-Lifers do care

As to the arguments that pro-lifers don’t care about children after they are born, this too is disingenuous as is the argument that they don’t care about the mothers or that they force people to have children.  I don’t see pro-lifers going around killing babies after they are born.

It is pro-life health centers that offer pregnant women not only health care for them and their child before birth, but who offer solutions for the woman if she is unable, for whatever reason, to keep and raise her child.  They are not afraid to discuss adoption.  They are not afraid to discuss types of childcare.  They are not afraid to discuss job training and parenting assistance.  They are not afraid to discuss taxpayer benefits that may be available to the mother and child. 

Pro-life begins with compassion for the unborn child, but it does not ignore compassion for the pregnant mother, the father, other family members and the compassion for all concerned does not end at the moment of birth.

Failing attempts to justify the killing

I continue to believe (hope?) that most women, indeed most adult humans, are capable of understanding the above.  So, then, how is it that so many believe it is OK to kill over 700,000 developing children a year?

Do women really think that abortion is just a form of birth control?  (Hint, it is not:  birth control prevents a pregnancy and thus a new human from being created; abortion kills a new human after pregnancy occurs, after the new life is created).  Yet, most abortions are to kill children that were conceived during consensual sex.  Things like rape, incest, severe medical necessity are the exceptions.  How can anyone who understands what abortion really is believe that it is just another form of birth control?

Do women really believe lack of an unlimited abortion right is some sort of attack on them?  If they do, then they do not have a very high opinion of themselves, because to believe that they do not have a say in whether or not to engage in consensual sex is the result of a very demeaning view of women. 

Women are powerful, and part of their power is the ability to decline sex, to use birth control, and to understand that whenever they engage in sex that the result could be a pregnancy.  If we are not teaching our children (at an appropriate age) where babies come from, then we do have a problem that needs to be addressed immediately. 

Similarly, if we are not teaching our children (again at an appropriate age) about birth control as well as that no birth control guarantees 100% that pregnancy will not follow intercourse, then we need to address that.  Women and men need to understand that if they have sex they are potentially going to become fathers and mothers.   They need to understand their responsibility in choosing to engage in sex.

Women are also strong enough to accept the consequences of their acts, including participating in the creation of a new life and the responsibility that the mother now has to that life.  (And yes, the responsibility is not hers alone, but neither does she have the absolute and unrestricted right to pronounce a death sentence on that new and innocent life.)

Overturning Roe

I grew up before Roe v. Wade.  I remember abortion arguments in the 60s and 70s.  Yes, abortions were performed, some legally, many illegally.  Some resulted in medical problems or even death for the mother as well as the aborted child.  But most occurred in the early stages and most were “successful” in that they killed the child and left the mother with no physical injuries.  The mental and psychological effects of aborting a pregnancy are another story and continue to be a result of abortions both legal and illegal.

I remember when Roe was decided.  It was not a good legal decision as any number of legal scholars have asserted since 1973.  Most people at the time would have preferred that they retain their ability to speak through their elected representatives and determine for themselves what rules and rights would exist regarding abortion.

In 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson established the idea of “separate but equal”.  That too was a poor decision by the Court and again, it took significant time for the Court to correct itself.  Plessy was overturned in 1954, 58 years after it was decided.  The wheels of justice move slowly, but they do move, and the beauty of our democracy is that we eventually get it right.

Everyone needs to put emotion aside and rejoice in what the Supreme Court had the courage to do in Dobbs: read the Constitution and enforce it by returning power to the states and the people where it rightfully belongs. We the people now have the power to determine exactly what the extent of any right to abortion should be. And, because the right is with the states, because we have a diverse population, the state rules will differ to some extent. This is democracy and we should all rejoice in it. The Dobbs opinion should not really be such a big deal, because all the Supreme Court did was do its job.

Now is the time for people on both sides to reach out and suggest reasonable rules.  They need to stop the hateful and violent protests and begin the peaceful lobbying and letter writing to their elected representatives so that everyone, through those representatives, will have a voice in what their state’s laws regarding abortion and life will be.

But first, I think we need to get over the general premise that seems to be that it is OK to kill a preborn (and sometimes being born or post birth) child.  Exceptional circumstances may, in extraordinary situations, justify such killing, but it is never simply dismissible as OK.  I do not understand that culture of death.  And I hope that anyone who has input into the education of children, whether their own or those of others, will not perpetuate the belief that killing an inconvenient child is OK.  We must learn to be less selfish than that.

Don’t Be Fooled

More precisely, don’t let the politicians and their minions fool you.  They want you to be upset over the Dobbs ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade.  They want to use this for their own political gain, to garner votes for themselves.  They want to make this a really big deal, but really it is not. 

Overturning Roe v. Wade does not make abortion illegal.  Be clear on that.  (My previous post on 6/24 addresses the opinion itself and includes a link to the full opinion.)

All the ruling does is give the people back their voice that is rightfully theirs.  The people themselves, through their elected representatives in each state may now determine their abortion rules or lack thereof.  The power is rightfully theirs and the rules of the states will be diverse reflecting the diversity of our country. 

All that the Supreme Court did was read the Constitution and return the power to the people where it belongs.  The people of each state, exercising their voices through their elected reps, can and will choose a variety of limitations ranging from total bans to no restrictions whatsoever.  Most will likely not stray too far from what has existed under Roe.   This is the way democracy works.  Rather than being angry, everyone should rejoice in their power and if they do not like their state's rules, they can use their voices through their state representatives to change them.

I would hope that in addressing possible state regulations that the legislators and people of each state do not simply react with emotion, fear, and hate, but sit down and spend time researching the many ramifications of abortion laws and listening to the many views that exist.  I would hope that there will be a tolerance of views that are different from one’s own.  Following are some initial thoughts for such discussions.

First, what is abortion? 

I think we have to begin there.  Abortion kills a preborn human.  That preborn child can be called an embryo or fetus depending on its stage of development.  In humans, the embryo is medically defined as “the developing individual from the time of implantation to about the end of the second month after conception.” From the third month to the point of delivery, the individual is called a fetus.  

So, beginning with conception we have a human organism, a human life.  Though not fully formed, it is unique and it is alive.  We have to acknowledge that regardless of stage of pregnancy, abortion ends the life of this unique human organism.  Abortion is quite simply the taking of a human life.

Is ending the life of a pre-born human acceptable, and if so, when?

Acknowledging that abortion is a killing, the people must decide if this is ever acceptable.  Generally we protect life.  Rules are sometimes, but not always, absolute.  Every state has statutes addressing various forms of homicide.  Some will be various degrees of murder, others will be various degrees of manslaughter, and others will be justifiable homicides.   

The people, through their representatives must decide whether they want an absolute ban or an absolute 9+ month permission for abortion.  If neither absolute, then it must be decided what will and what will not be allowed.

Restrictions and permissions might focus on the point during pregnancy at which the abortion is performed and/or the reason for the abortion.  It should be clear that such allowances are exceptions to the general rule that all life is to be protected. 

For me, the idea of setting a specific and perhaps arbitrary time during the pregnancy before which killing is OK and after which it is not does not comport with this country’s basic belief in the value of life.  Many will have religious beliefs that oppose taking a human life.  Some will believe there is a point before which the child is not well-enough formed to be of value.  These are emotional issues, but they must be considered so as to hear all sides and beliefs as well as the science related to such things as when a fetus can feel pain and when it is viable.

If not time, what circumstances should allow an abortion?

Abortion is seen by many as simply another form of birth control.  It is not. 

Most abortions terminate the lives of children conceived during consensual sex.  Should children so conceived be allowed to be aborted simply because they are not wanted by the mother?  This brings us to the tired phrase of “a woman’s right to choose.”  Should she be entitled to engage in consensual sex and then, if she becomes pregnant, be allowed to abort (i.e., kill) her child?  Or does her “right to choose” occur at an earlier stage?

To say that in such consensual cases the woman was not capable of making the choice to have or not to have sex is demeaning to women.  What happens is that the woman is either unaware of or willing to ignore the possible consequences of that act.  If unaware, we need to do a better job of educating our daughters (and sons); if unwilling to take responsibility for her act and its consequences then we also need to do a better job of teaching our children that acts have consequences and that they cannot do whatever they want with impunity; they cannot disregard the effects of their actions on others (including a child that they might conceive).  Abortion is not just another form of birth control, and we need to teach our children that you can’t just dispose of a life because it is inconvenient for you.

But what about rape and incest or circumstances where the child will have significant medical issues or the mother’s life is truly in danger?  These are exceptions that prove the more general rule.  These are the circumstances that might make a specific abortion acceptable in the same way that certain circumstances make a homicide justifiable.  But abortion should not be generally accepted simply in order to allow it in these small percentage of the unwanted pregnancies that now end in the death of the child.  Any exceptions should truly be exceptional.

Who has the right to order the killing?

Another tired phrase is “my body, my choice” which is often combined with “abortion is reproductive health.”  

Beyond the idea noted above that the woman’s choice comes earlier in the process, the reality is that there are two bodies involved here: the woman’s body which is the carrier for the second new human’s body.  Both must be considered.   In this country we do not give any one group of people the right to murder another.

As to reproductive health, again, that involves the health of the woman before pregnancy along with such things as birth control.  Once she begins the reproductive process the health of both her and her child must be considered.  Indeed, the CDC includes both maternal and infant health in its discussions of reproductive health.

Once there is a pregnancy there are two lives to consider.  But there are also others:  the father, perhaps siblings of the preborn child, and other possible family issues.  The pregnant woman may be carrying the child, but that person is also the child of the father, carrying his as well as the mother’s DNA and family legacy.  Should the father have a voice?  And if so, when?  Personally, I think the child consensually conceived is of both father and mother and neither should alone be allowed to terminate that child’s life.

And what about society in general and our obligation and responsibility to protect all life?  Every one of us bears some responsibility in the creation of any right to abort.

Criteria

If abortion is not completely banned or allowed up to and including birth with no exceptions, then there must be criteria for allowing exceptions to whatever rules exist prohibiting abortion.  It is not just the mother, or mother and father, but also the child that must be considered.   Beyond the interests of the parents, the best interests of the child must be considered; those interests do not usually include death.  The exceptions of things like rape; incest; etc. might fall into an exceptional category making certain abortions justifiable even though they take the life of the unborn and innocent child.  But convenience of the parents, or interference in their careers, lifestyle, finances, etc., should not create the extraordinary circumstances that any exception should require.

Facts, Emotion, and Reason

Right now, everyone seems to be coming to grips with the fact that Roe v. Wade is no more.  Emotions are running high.  Sadly, those emotions are being manipulated by politicians and the media as they feed the public fiery rhetoric filled with false facts. 

Feelings are emotional interpretations of events.  The events themselves are generally neutral.  That is the case with this decision – it basically just reasserts the Constitution and its limitations on the federal government with power left to the states and the people.  There are those who want you to believe that is evil, but actually it is empowering.  The key question that everyone must ask is “Are your feelings your own or are they being manipulated?” 

Then, we need to put those emotions aside, listen to those with other views, examine in detail all relevant facts, and move forward with reasonable and rational abortion rules that consider and protect everyone concerned, including the unborn children.