Here’s what last week’s Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v. Carhart, the “partial birth abortion case”, means…
1. It doesn’t mean that there has been any change in the controlling precedent of American abortion law, the 1992 Planned Parenthood vs. Casey decision authored by Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter…
It must be stated at the outset and with clarity that Roe’s essential holding, the holding we reaffirm, has three parts. First is a recognition of the right of the woman to choose to have an abortion before viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the State. Before viability, the State’s interests are not strong enough to support a prohibition of abortion or the imposition of a substantial obstacle to the woman.s effective right to elect the procedure. Second is a confirmation of the State’s power to restrict abortions after fetal viability, if the law contains exceptions for pregnancies which endanger the woman.s life or health. And third is the principle that the State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child. These principles do not contradict one another; and we adhere to each.Since partial birth abortion occurs after fetal viability, the decision applies to circumstances where the court has already said that restrictions are allowed.
2. Lost in most of the MSM coverage has been Gonzales v. Carhart‘s major holding: the courts don’t get an extra veto over the lawmaking process, to be applied at their discretion, when the issue of abortion is involved.
Gonzales v. Carhart is not the final word on any partial birth abortion procedure. Women may still seek the procedure in individual cases, and courts might still yet rule that the Federal ban cannot be enforced under certain circumstances. What the Carhart ruling does say is that the courts cannot use the existence of exceptions to strike down the law as a whole. In legalese, the “facial” challenge to the law has been rejected, but “as applied” challenges are still possible. Ed Whelan of the Ethics and Public Policy Center has much more on this central issue here.
3. National Review Online‘s editorial on the ruling provides the best explanation of why the “intact dilation and extraction” procedure that is the object of the Federal ban was chosen for legislative action. If singling out one late-term procedure for restriction seems absurd, it is because the legal reasoning applied to abortion matters has been absurd — and not at all scientific.
Intact dilation and extraction, which begins with the delivery of an unborn child, involves a legitimate gray area in the Supreme Court’s de-facto abortion jurisprudence (the dejure standard established in Casey nothwithstanding) that has placed political ideology over science. The courts have held that the life of a fully viable human being is not always protected by law, depending on the location of that life. An 8 3/4 month old fetus in the womb? Not protected. A 6 month old premature baby, one second after delivery? Protected. A 6 month old fetus, one second before an emergency premature delivery? Not protected. And a 6 month old baby in the process of being delivered?
That is the question the Federal partial birth abortion ban was designed to address. [Open full post]
1. Commenter “Suzanne” thought my characterization of those attempting to connect the events leading to the firing of Don Imus to the movement to restore the fairness doctrine as having an agenda of getting the government to “limit the expression of certain viewpoints in order to promote civility” was unfair.
Well, here is Henry Brandt Ayers, publisher of the Anniston Star, an Alabama newspaper that has been named as one of the Columbia Journalism Review’s top 30, commenting on Imus and the fairness doctrine…
The Reagan era seems to be ending. A new president and Congress have an opportunity to refresh public debate and restore civility in a renewed Fairness Doctrine. Call it the Imus Act.If that is not a call for content-regulation of media by the government, i.e. limiting how much of a certain viewpoint is allowed to be broadcast, in order to promote civility, then what is it?
2. Bizarrely, Mr. Ayres argues that one reason we need viewpoint regulation of broadcast media is to restore the faded credibility of print media…
Once the standards of good taste and fair play were removed, the way to be heard above the clamor of perpetual news was to shout louder, to make ever more outrageous statements. A confused public turned cynical, doubting the veracity of all news media.Print media credibility improves, by definition, when people feel that newspapers are dealing it down the middle. Media credibility has suffered because people sense that the professional culture of journalism encourages a certain, usually leftward, slant on the news.
In 1985, just 16 percent of the public gave low credibility ratings to their daily newspaper; by 2004 that number had nearly tripled to 45 percent.
Given his position, Mr. Ayers should consider how much his call for voices on the right to be more strongly regulated by the government does to convince people that the fabled liberal bias in the media does not exist. Is print media credibility really damaged more by competition from broadcast media than it is by newspaper publishers who openly advocate for government enforcement of a certain slant on the news?
3. Even before l’affaire Imus, a bill to restore the fairness doctrine had been introduced in Congress. One supporter of the Senate version of the bill is Bernard Sanders of Vermont, a self-described socialist who caucuses with the Democrats. This brings America its least surprising headline of the year…
Socialist favors stronger government control of media.I guess ya’ get what ya’ vote for. [Open full post]
I’d like to thank the Warwick Daily Times for acknowledging Anchor Rising in their new community blogs section and on their editorial page.
And now, because I’m a surly blogger, I have a complaint. How come the Times feels the need to point out that we’re “conservative”, while RI Future is just a blog…
We’re particularly eager to grow our page for community and political blogs. The page already features automatically updated lead-ins to RIFuture.org, conservative blog Anchor Rising, and Leo Costantino’s Brightside West Warwick.[Open full post]
According to Katherine Gregg’s reports in the ProJo, the leadership in the General Assembly believes that free health care for RI legislators is a Constitutional Right
House Speaker Murphy and Senate President Montalbano say they have no intention of making premium co-pays mandatory.
Asked last week why lawmakers alone should be spared, Murphy issued this statement: “In 1994, the voters approved an amendment to the Rhode Island Constitution that provided health insurance benefits for Representatives and Senators. I am a firm believer that the members of the Legislature are entitled to these fully paid health benefits as established by the voters.”
The constitutional provision he cited (Article VI, Section 3) says: “Senators and Representatives shall receive the same health insurance benefits as full-time state employees.” Those other employees are required to contribute toward the premiums for their benefits.
Why not legislators too?
House spokesman Larry Berman elaborated on Murphy’s thinking: “At the time of the vote in 1994 when this was changed, there was no co-share and there is no provision in the Constitution that discusses a co-share.”
Montalbano agrees with “the interpretation of the Constitution that says: if you want to change the law as to our compensation, which includes health benefits, you have to change the Constitution.”
Asked what he thinks premium-free health care for lawmakers does to the General Assembly’s image in a climate in which most workers who have health benefits pay for a portion of them, Montalbano said: “I think it’s different because we are elected to the office, in positions that pay what they pay …. I mean our families give up a lot for the time that we spend here.
“And so, if one of the benefits is that they get health care coverage as part of that compensation, I am comfortable with that. … And I don’t think the image is that we are over-paid at all. … I think the image is that we work hard and we spend a lot of hours and that if we were here for the pay, most of us wouldn’t be here.”
Then why–if we are to buy into this nobless oblige of yours–are you fighting so hard to keep this perk, Senator? But back to the Constitutional issue. Montalbano and Murphy are clearly caught in one here. The wording is clear and Berman’s “originalist” argument doesn’t hold water.
Why not try something else and take the Constitutional language for what it clearly states: “Senators and Representatives shall receive the same health insurance benefits as full-time state employees.” If the average full-time state employee is co-paying, then you guys have to do the same. It seems pretty clear that the wording was intended to allow for a changing compensation package. The RI government has asked state workers to change with the times, and our legislators should do the same. Besides, since when did this group start arguing from original intent?
At Anchor Rising, our reading of the tea leaves has led us to forecast that the Rhode Island General Assembly is planning to reduce state aid to education as a means of closing the state budget deficit.
Confirmation that this is indeed the plan arrives today, courtesy of the Projo‘s Kia Hall Hayes…
Legislative leaders are freezing $236 million in school construction projects until they can rework how they are financed and approved.Are capital education outlays a budget area where there’s lots of fat to be cut? Well, a Census Bureau study released last year ranked the state of Rhode Island 51st in “direct expenditures by public school systems for construction of buildings and roads [and] purchases of equipment, land, and existing structures”. So the answer would seem to be “no”, yet the place where Rhode Island ranks 51st in a nation of 50 states is the place where the legislature thinks it would be most prudent to make cuts.
The move is a surprise to the state Department of Education and some local senators and officials.
Woonsocket’s $80-million middle school project is the first to encounter resistance from Senate leaders, including Senate President Joseph A. Montalbano.
“To go through all these hoops and testify before the House and then to have a different set of rules and agenda laid at your feet … at the very least it was surprising and at the very most it was shocking,” Woonsocket Schools Supt. Maureen B. Macera said earlier this week….
Citing a possible $150-million state deficit this year and an even larger projected deficit for next year, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Stephen D. Alves, D-West Warwick, said lawmakers are looking at “ways to reinvent government and the way we do business.”
“Everything is being held until we rectify and come to terms with how much money we’re looking at and what are the most vital projects. It is the Senate’s position that they are going to be put on hold,” Alves said in a phone interview.
Senator Montalbano, who represents Lincoln, North Providence and Pawtucket, said in a separate interview, “We need to look at each and every one of these projects before we rubber stamp them.”
On the House side, Paul W. Crowley, D-Newport, who serves on both the finance and education committees, called the moratorium “the prudent thing to do” during a time of increasingly tight budgets.
The Rhode Island General Assembly’s governing philosophy of slashing already underfunded budget items so to preserve more lavishsly funded programs that aren’t producing the desired results goes a long way toward explaining why average Rhode Islanders receive so little in return for the high taxes they pay.
The article also suggests that more than technocratic budget politics may be in play here…
Angry Woonsocket lawmakers, officials and residents have questioned whether any ulterior motives are behind the resistance.[Open full post]
“Why us, why now?” asked Woonsocket Mayor Susan D. Menard.
Menard confirmed this week that UBS Financial Services, where Alves is a financial adviser, had sought to manage Woonsocket’s $90-million pension fund in 2003. The city decided to go with Wilshire Associates, which some have suggested could be behind the middle school project’s recent problems.
“That’s a question only Senator Alves can answer,” Menard said.
Posed to Alves, he responded, “No.”
“If they’re trying to make it like I’m retaliating, people can think what they want to think,” he said, noting that Barrington’s $870,000 plan to refurbish the district’s tennis and basketball courts is also in jeopardy, along with another project involving building wind turbines at Portsmouth elementary and high schools.
Woonsocket isn’t being singled out; it’s happening everywhere, Alves said.
Not too long ago I posted a criticism of Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), the Speaker of the House of Representatives, for trekking to Damascus to meet with the thug dictator of Syria. In arguing against her trip, I used a scene from the Godfather as an analogy: Sonny dissenting from a decision made by his father, Don Corleone, during a meeting with a representative of another Mafia family. The representative—Virgil “the Turk” Sollozo—an assassin for the Tattaglias, immediately concludes that if the Don is eliminated, Sonny will take his place and cooperate. And sure enough, shortly thereafter, the Tattaglias attempt to assassinate the Don.
If “Sonny” Pelosi’s Syrian trip was ill-advised because of Assad’s likely perception that if he can wait out the Bush administration, he can make a better deal with the Democrats, how much worse was the widely-reported statement two days ago by Senate Majority Leader Harry “the Copperhead” Reid that the war in Iraq is lost? According to news reports, Reid told journalists “I believe … that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week.”
America’s enemies in the Middle East certainly took note of Pelosi’s trip; the Arab press was full of favorable reports of the Speaker’s pilgrimage to Damascus. The Middle Eastern press has also, not surprisingly, taken note of Reid’s comments (which he tried to take back later in the day). So in addition to feeding defeatism in the United States and demoralizing the troops who are in Iraq (or soon to be on their way there), Reid has most likely encouraged our enemies in that unhappy place.
Our enemies know that the war that counts is the one for the American mind. If we believe that the war is lost, they win. They have an incentive to keep fighting and to kill as many people as they can. In a gun battle with American troops, the insurgents lose. So they concentrated on killing as many Iraqis as they can in the hope and expectation that the news will demoralize the American public.
Lincoln noted that in a democratic republic, “public sentiment” is critical. During the Civil War, Robert E. Lee was an assiduous reader of Northern newspapers. By 1864 he understood that the only hope for the Confederacy was that war weariness in the North would lead to Lincoln’s electoral defeat. The Confederates put a great deal of hope in the “Copperheads,” the so-called “Peace Democrats” who did everything possible to obstruct the Union war effort.
During Vietnam, the Tet Offensive of 1968 was a military defeat for the North Vietnamese communists, but a public relations victory that helped turn the American public against the war. In audiotapes released by the insurgents over the last couple of years, their leaders such as the late and unlamented Abu Musab al-Zarqawi have demonstrated that they understand the lessons of Tet very well.
I believe that the bomb attacks in Iraq that caused such carnage in recent days are the expected consequences of the Democrats’ efforts to undercut the president’s new team and the changed strategy represented by the so-called “surge.” We know what the Bush surge is. I think a good name for the increasing body count in Iraq is the “Reid surge.”
Update: I have been pushing the similarities between today’s Democrats and the Civil War “Copperheads.” On Friday’s “Best of the Web,” James Taranto picks up the theme, comparing Reid’s statement to the Democratic Party platform of 1864, which was written by the Copperheads. Indeed, a Copperhead, Rep. George H. Pendleton of Ohio, was the Democratic vice-presidential nominee. Not much has changed.
[Open full post]“Resolved, that this convention does explicitly declare, as the sense of the American people, that after four years of failure to restore the Union by the experiment of war, during which, under the pretence of military necessity, or war power higher than the Constitution, the Constitution itself has been disregarded in every part, and public liberty and private right alike trodden down, and the material prosperity of the country essentially impaired, justice, humanity, liberty, and the public welfare demand that immediate efforts be made for a cessation of hostilities, with a view to an ultimate convention of the States or other peaceable means, to the end that at the earliest practicable moment peace may be restored on the basis of the federal Union of the States.”–1864 Democratic platform
“Tom Paine” takes the Brits to task for their “smug” and “gleeful” take on the recent Virginia Tech massacre. He also makes this acute observation about comparing British and American homicide rates:
Britain’s only statistical advantage in the field of crime is that our homicide rate is lower. That’s largely because we only count convictions, not unsolved crimes or those plea-bargained down to something else. America counts all reported offences, including those that turn out to be justifiable homicides (e.g. self-defence). In our statistics, we would (at best) have counted the V-Tech killings as a single murder. We might not actually show them at all, if they were found to have been committed by a mentally-disturbed person (see Home Office Statistical Bulletin 02/07). America’s statistics reflect the total number of victims.
We know that there are lies, damn lies and statistics and we should keep in mind that the axiom is applicable internationally, too.
[Open full post]One of these things is not like the others…
1647: Rhode Island adopts its first code of laws. In stark contrast to codes enacted in colonies like Maryland or Massachusetts around the same time, the code imposes no penalties for “blasphemy” or uttering “any reproachful words or speeches”.
One of these things just doesn’t belong…
1842: Rhode Island adopts its first state constitution by popular referendum. The constitution includes guarantees of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Here’s the freedom of the press clause…
The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments on any subject…
Can you tell which thing is not like the others…
1920: Rhode Island native (and Harvard Law professor) Zechariah Chafee publicly criticizes the Sedition Act of 1918, an attempt to limit criticism of the government of the US…
One of the most important purposes of society and government is the discovery and spread of truth on subjects of general concern. This is possible only through absolutely unlimited discussion…
Before I finish my song…
2007: The Organizations Advisory and Review Committee of the University of Rhode Island Student Senate votes to derecognize the URI College Republicans, because of their staging of a satire questioning whether any race or gender limited scholarship can be consistent with an anti-discrimination policy. The Student Senate’s position is that is has the right to treat URI Republicans differently from other organizations, because of an opinion they have expressed, unless they offer a public apology.
Randal Edgar of the Projo has some details…
The College Republicans at the University of Rhode Island say their ad for a “White Heterosexual American Male” scholarship was just a satirical prank, intended to voice the group’s opposition to affirmative action….When Neil Leston and the rest of URI’s student Senators are deciding how to vote, will they also be considering a resolution of protest against the many other scholarships sanctioned by the University of Rhode Island that are limited by race or gender? Here are two examples from the official URI webpage…
The scholarship has drawn attention from more than the three dozen students who applied for it.
Among them is the Student Senate, which told the College Republicans last month to apologize for the ad and for handing out scholarship applications. Also interested is URI President Robert L. Carothers, who recently told the Senate to back off. Forcing the Republicans to apologize, or make statements that “are not their own,” could deny them their constitutional rights, he wrote in a recent memo to the student body.
As of yesterday, the Student Senate was standing its ground….
Student Senate President Neil Leston said the student government got involved after a letter to the editor in the college paper suggested the ad was discriminatory and had violated the Senate’s bylaws. He said the number of students who applied for the scholarship — about 40 according to the Republican club — suggests that some people took the ad seriously.
“The big issue is they did not identify it as satire and that becomes problematic,” he said.
- Robert L. Carothers and Patricia Ruane Scholarship: Income from endowment for scholarships to minority students.
- Mary Braga Scholarship: Income from endowment for a scholarship to a female undergraduate in the College of Arts and Sciences of Portuguese descent. Preference will be given to a Rhode Island resident and to the older student. The dean of the College of Arts and Sciences will determine the recipient.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has more detail on the case here.
“One of these Things” written by Joe Raposo and Jon Stone. [Open full post]
