The Change That We Have All Hoped For...

This is the Senate version of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA)that Obama has promised to sign.


"Freedom of Choice Act (Introduced in Senate)

S 1173 IS


110th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 1173
To protect, consistent with Roe v. Wade, a woman's freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

April 19, 2007
Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Mrs. MURRAY, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. SCHUMER, Mrs. CLINTON, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. BAUCUS, and Ms. CANTWELL) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To protect, consistent with Roe v. Wade, a woman's freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Freedom of Choice Act'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) The United States was founded on core principles, such as liberty, personal privacy, and equality, which ensure that individuals are free to make their most intimate decisions without governmental interference and discrimination.

(2) One of the most private and difficult decisions an individual makes is whether to begin, prevent, continue, or terminate a pregnancy. Those reproductive health decisions are best made by women, in consultation with their loved ones and health care providers.

(3) In 1965, in Griswold v. Connecticut (381 U.S. 479), and in 1973, in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113) and Doe v. Bolton (410 U.S. 179), the Supreme Court recognized that the right to privacy protected by the Constitution encompasses the right of every woman to weigh the personal, moral, and religious considerations involved in deciding whether to begin, prevent, continue, or terminate a pregnancy.

(4) The Roe v. Wade decision carefully balances the rights of women to make important reproductive decisions with the State's interest in potential life. Under Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, the right to privacy protects a woman's decision to choose to terminate her pregnancy prior to fetal viability, with the State permitted to ban abortion after fetal viability except when necessary to protect a woman's life or health.

(5) These decisions have protected the health and lives of women in the United States. Prior to the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, an estimated 1,200,000 women each year were forced to resort to illegal abortions, despite the risk of unsanitary conditions, incompetent treatment, infection, hemorrhage, disfiguration, and death. Before Roe, it is estimated that thousands of women died annually in the United States as a result of illegal abortions.

(6) In countries in which abortion remains illegal, the risk of maternal mortality is high. According to the World Health Organization, of the approximately 600,000 pregnancy-related deaths occurring annually around the world, 80,000 are associated with unsafe abortions.

(7) The Roe v. Wade decision also expanded the opportunities for women to participate equally in society. In 1992, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (505 U.S. 833), the Supreme Court observed that, `[t]he ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.'.

(8) Even though the Roe v. Wade decision has stood for more than 34 years, there are increasing threats to reproductive health and freedom emerging from all branches and levels of government. In 2006, South Dakota became the first State in more than 15 years to enact a ban on abortion in nearly all circumstances. Supporters of this ban have admitted it is an attempt to directly challenge Roe in the courts. Other States are considering similar bans.

(9) Further threatening Roe, the Supreme Court recently upheld the first-ever Federal ban on an abortion procedure, which has no exception to protect a woman's health. The majority decision in Gonzales v. Carhart (05-380, slip op. April 18, 2007) and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America fails to protect a woman's health, a core tenet of Roe v. Wade. Dissenting in that case, Justice Ginsburg called the majority's opinion `alarming', and stated that, `[f]or the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman's health'. Further, she said, the Federal ban `and the Court's defense of it cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this Court'.

(10) Legal and practical barriers to the full range of reproductive services endanger women's health and lives. Incremental restrictions on the right to choose imposed by Congress and State legislatures have made access to reproductive care extremely difficult, if not impossible, for many women across the country. Currently, 87 percent of the counties in the United States have no abortion provider.

(11) While abortion should remain safe and legal, women should also have more meaningful access to family planning services that prevent unintended pregnancies, thereby reducing the need for abortion.

(12) To guarantee the protections of Roe v. Wade, Federal legislation is necessary.

(13) Although Congress may not create constitutional rights without amending the Constitution, Congress may, where authorized by its enumerated powers and not prohibited by the Constitution, enact legislation to create and secure statutory rights in areas of legitimate national concern.

(14) Congress has the affirmative power under section 8 of article I of the Constitution and section 5 of the 14th amendment to the Constitution to enact legislation to facilitate interstate commerce and to prevent State interference with interstate commerce, liberty, or equal protection of the laws.

(15) Federal protection of a woman's right to choose to prevent or terminate a pregnancy falls within this affirmative power of Congress, in part, because--

(A) many women cross State lines to obtain abortions and many more would be forced to do so absent a constitutional right or Federal protection;

(B) reproductive health clinics are commercial actors that regularly purchase medicine, medical equipment, and other necessary supplies from out-of-State suppliers; and

(C) reproductive health clinics employ doctors, nurses, and other personnel who travel across State lines in order to provide reproductive health services to patients.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) GOVERNMENT- The term `government' includes a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, or official (or other individual acting under color of law) of the United States, a State, or a subdivision of a State.

(2) STATE- The term `State' means each of the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each territory or possession of the United States.

(3) VIABILITY- The term `viability' means that stage of pregnancy when, in the best medical judgment of the attending physician based on the particular medical facts of the case before the physician, there is a reasonable likelihood of the sustained survival of the fetus outside of the woman.

SEC. 4. INTERFERENCE WITH REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH PROHIBITED.

(a) Statement of Policy- It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.

(b) Prohibition of Interference- A government may not--

(1) deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose--

(A) to bear a child;

(B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or

(C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or

(2) discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.

(c) Civil Action- An individual aggrieved by a violation of this section may obtain appropriate relief (including relief against a government) in a civil action.

SEC. 5. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act, or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which the provision is held to be unconstitutional, shall not be affected thereby.

SEC. 6. RETROACTIVE EFFECT.

This Act applies to every Federal, State, and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act."


Can anyone please give a non-subjective definition of "viability" as referenced in Secs. 3 and 4? Didn't think so...

The Old Man is Computer Illiterate

From the NRO:

Wondering No More [Jonah Goldberg]


Yep. The day after 9/11, as part of its "get tough" makeover, the Obama campaign is mocking John McCain for not using a computer, without caring why he doesn't use a computer. From the AP story about the computer illiterate ad:

"Our economy wouldn't survive without the Internet, and cyber-security continues to represent one our most serious national security threats," [Obama spokesman Dan] Pfeiffer said. "It's extraordinary that someone who wants to be our president and our commander in chief doesn't know how to send an e-mail."

Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by "extraordinary." The reason he doesn't send email is that he can't use a keyboard because of the relentless beatings he received from the Viet Cong in service to our country. From the Boston Globe (March 4, 2000):

McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from inside: McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes. Friends marvel at McCain's encyclopedic knowledge of sports. He's an avid fan - Ted Williams is his hero - but he can't raise his arm above his shoulder to throw a baseball.

In a similar vein I guess it's an outrage that the blind governor of New York David Paterson doesn't know how to drive a car. After all, transportation issues are pretty important. How dare he serve as governor while being ignorant of what it's like to navigate New York's highways.

Do not question Obama's dedication to this country. But please, whatever you do, criticize the dedication of the man that spent several years in the Hanoi Hilton even after he was offered an early release.

Keep digging your own grave, Obama, because I know you are at least an expert in that.

But the Memory Remains...

1) I received a hearty blow to the head a while back at soccer practice. After colliding with another player while in pursuit of the ball, I found myself sprawled on the grass with no memory of the five minutes prior. In fact, I still do not remember much of what happened several minutes afterwards. I do remember looking down at my penny because I had no memory of what color team I was on.

I'm wearing a yellow penny so I must be...Oh, I'm wearing my red Korean Marines shirt today and my blue running shorts.

Yeah, you could say that I was a little out of it. I knew that I was at school and at the soccer field on which I had spent dozens of hours, yet my eyes took in the scenery like as if I was there for the first time. Essentially, I was trying to remember but could not find myself to place it.

So the next day, with an Advil Gel quickly dissolving into my system (or so I hoped) and a Sudoku sitting in front of me, a question popped into my bruised and drugged brain.

Why do we have memories?

The only real convincing answer was this, and it came with surprising speed: So that we may remember the things God has done for us.

I thought the thought (ha) was interesting.


2) I have finally figured out why The Dark Knight was not really my cup of tea.

I will concede that The Dark Knight was one of the most intriguing and exciting movies I have seen in a long time. The plot, special effects, and acting were all simply amazing. Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker was, shall we say, convincing. It almost makes you wonder if a little bit of the Joker was in him.

But that's not what disturbs me.

The part that bothers me is that they made the Joker so disgusting without providing a contrast to his character. Even though Batman and Gordon want to keep the Joker from having the last laugh by way of his creation, Two Face, the Joker makes everyone compromise in order to defeat him. And there is no redemption for that compromise. That is what bothers me. Yes, the Joker exemplifies nihilism, but there is nothing to contrast with it. The fearless, unwavering Harvey Dent falls and dies with his second face still on. Batman faces severe doubts and compromises his reputation in order to keep the Joker from winning. But since there is no redemption for Batman, wouldn't the Joker be fine with either result? Either Batman or Harvey Dent will be seen by the public as a murderer, so in my mind the Joker still has the last hurrah.

Those are my two cents, and if you weird fans do not like it, go spend eight bucks and see the movie again for the heck of it.

3) I believe that Sarah Palin is exactly what the Republican Party needed to gain energy for this fierce election that is looming over the horizon. Most people thought it was not worth it to support McCain, but hell, it is going to be a brawl now that SHE stepped into the ring!

4) I have vowed to listen to nothing but instrumental music for the next week. Rock, Rap, and Electronic are not exceptions (which boils it down to...classical and soundtracks). We shall see how that goes.

China and Russia’s Geographic Divide

An interesting analysis from Stratfor. http://www.stratfor.com:80/weekly/china_and_russia_s_geographic_divide

By Peter Zeihan


Since the Soviet fall, Russian generals, intelligence chiefs and foreign policy personnel have often waxed philosophic about the inevitability of a global alliance to hem in U.S. power — often using the rhetoric of a “multipolar world.” Central in all of these plans has been not only the implied leadership of Russia, but the implied presence of China. At first glance, the two seem natural partners. China has a booming manufacturing economy, while Russia boasts growing exports of raw materials. But a closer look at the geography of the two paints a very different picture, while the history of the two tells an extraordinarily different story. If anything, it is no small miracle that the two have never found themselves facing each other in a brutal war.

A Hostile Geography
Russia east of the Urals and the Chinese interior are empty, forbidding places. Nearly all of Russia’s population is hard up on its western border, while China’s is in snug against its eastern and southern coasts. There is an ocean’s worth of nothing between them. But while ships can ply the actual ocean cheaply, potentially boosting economic activity, trade between Russia and China does not come easy. Moscow and Beijing are farther apart than Washington and London, and the cost of building meaningful infrastructure between the two would run in the hundreds of billions. With the exception of some resource development and sales in the border region, integration between the two simply does not make economic sense.

Yet, distance aside, there are no real barriers between the two. Southwestern Siberia is a long stretch of flatness that flows seamlessly into the steppes of Central Asia and the highlands of western China. This open expanse is the eastern end of the old Silk Road — proof that luxury trade is often feasible where more conventional trade simply cannot pay the transport bill. But where caravans bearing spice and silk can pass, so can armies bearing less desirable “goods and services.”

Ominously for Russia, there is little to separate the Russian Far East — where most of the Russian population east of the Urals resides — from Manchuria. And not only is there a 15:1 population imbalance here in favor of the Chinese (and not only has Beijing quietly encouraged Chinese immigration across its border with Russia since the Soviet breakup), but the Russian Far East is blocked from easy access to the rest of Russia by the towering mountains surrounding Lake Baikal. So while the two parts of Russia have minimal barriers separating them from China, they do have barriers separating them from each other. Russia can thus only hold its Far East so long as China lacks the desire to take it.

Geography also drives the two in different directions for economic reasons. For the same reason that trade between the two is unlikely, developing Russia would be an intimidating task. Unlike China or the United States, Russia’s rivers for the most part do not interconnect, and none of the major rivers go anywhere useful. Russia has loads of coastline, but nowhere does coast meld with population centers and ice-free ocean access. The best the country has is remote Murmansk.

So Russia’s development — doubly so east of the Urals — largely mirrors Africa’s: limited infrastructure primarily concerned with exploiting mineral deposits. Anything more holistic is simply too expensive to justify.

In contrast, China boasts substantial populations along its warm coasts. This access to transport allows China to industrialize more readily than Russia, but China shares easily crossed land borders with no natural trading partner. Its only serious option for international trade lies in maritime shipping. Yet, because land transport is “merely” difficult and not impossible, China must dedicate resources to a land-based military. This makes China militarily both vulnerable to — yet economically dependent upon — sea powers, both for access to raw materials and to ship its goods to market. The dominant naval power of today is not land-centric Russia, but the United States. To be economically successful China must at least have a civil and neutral relationship with the $14-trillion-economy-wielding and 11-aircraft-carrier-strike-group-toting United States. Russia barely even enters into China’s economic equation.

And the way Russia does figure into that equation — Central Asia — is not a positive, because there is an additional complication.

Natural gas produced in the Central Asian states until recently was part and parcel of overall Soviet production. Since those states’ infrastructure ran exclusively north into Russia, Moscow could count on this captive output to sign European supply contracts at a pittance. The Kremlin then uses those contracts as an anvil over Europe to extract political concessions.

“China” has been around a long time, but the borders of today represent the largest that the Chinese state has ever been. To prevent its outer provinces from breaking away (as they have many times in China’s past), one of Beijing’s geopolitical imperatives is to lash those provinces to the center as firmly as possible. Beijing has done this in two ways. First, it has stocked these outlying regions with Han Chinese to dilute the identity of the indigenous populations and culturally lash the regions to the center. Second, it has physically and economically lashed them to the center via building loads of infrastructure. So, in the past 15 years, China has engaged in a flurry of road, pipeline and rail construction to places such as Tibet and Xinjiang.

Merge these two seemingly minor details and it suddenly becomes clear that much of the mineral and energy riches of formerly Soviet Central Asia — resources that Russia must have to maintain its energy leverage over Europe — are now just as close to China’s infrastructure network as they are to Russia’s. And obtaining those resources is one of the few possible means China has of mitigating its vulnerability to U.S. naval power.

All that is needed are some pieces of connecting infrastructure to allow those resources to flow east to China instead of north to Russia. Those connections — road, pipe and rail — are already under construction. The Russians suddenly have some very active competition in a region they have thought of as their exclusive playground, not to mention a potential highway to Russia proper, for the past quarter millennia. Control of Central Asia is now a strategic imperative for both.

A Cold History
The history of the two powers — rarely warm, oftentimes bitter — meshes well with the characteristics of the region’s geography.

From the Chinese point of view, Russia is a relative newcomer to Asia, having started claiming territory east of the Urals only in the late 1500s, and having spent most of its blood, sweat and tears in the region in Central Asia rather than the Far East. Russian efforts in the Far East amounted to little more than a string of small outposts even when Moscow began claiming Pacific territory in the late 1700s. Still, by 1700, Russian strength was climbing while Chinese power was waning under the onslaught of European colonialism, enabling a still-militarily weak Russian force to begin occupying chunks of northeastern China. With a bit of bluff and guile, Russia formally annexed what is now Amur province from Qing China in the 1858 Treaty of Aigun, and shortly thereafter the Chinese-Russian border of today was established.

China attempted to resist even after Aigun — lumping the document with the other “unequal treaties” that weakened Chinese sovereignty and territorial integrity — and indeed the Russians had more or less swindled China out of a million square miles of territory. But Beijing simply had too many other issues going on to mount a serious resistance (the Opium Wars come to mind). Once the Trans-Siberian Railway was completed early in the 20th century, Russia was able to back up its claims with troops, and the issue definitively moved to the back burner — especially as the rising colonial aspirations of Japan occupied more attention than China had to spare.

The bilateral relationship warmed somewhat after the end of World War II, with Russian energy and weapons critical to Mao’s consolidation of power (although notably, Stalin originally backed Mao’s rival, Chiang Kai-shek). But this camaraderie was not to last. Stalin did everything he could first to egg on the North Korean government to invade South Korea, and then to nudge the Chinese into backing the North Koreans against the U.S.-led U.N. counterattack. But while the USSR provided weapons to China in the Korean War, Moscow never sent troops — and when the war ended, Stalin had the temerity to submit a bill to Bejing for services rendered.

Sino-Soviet relations never really improved after that. As part of Cold War maneuvers, Russia allied with India and North Vietnam, both longtime Chinese rivals. Therein lay the groundwork of a U.S.-Chinese rapprochement, and rapid-fire events quickly drove the Chinese and Soviets apart. The United States and China both backed Pakistan in the Indo-Pakistani wars. Some 60,000 Uighurs — a Muslim minority that the Chinese still fear hold separatist aspirations — fled across the Soviet border in 1962. In 1965, the Chinese energy industry matured to the point that Soviet oil was no longer required to keep the Chinese economy afloat. Later, Washington turned a blind eye to the horrors of the Chinese-bankrolled Khmer Rouge in Cambodia to destabilize Soviet-backed Vietnam. When all was said and done, the Soviet Union faced a foe to its south every bit as implacable as those on its western and eastern flanks.

But the seminal event that made the Sino-Soviet split inevitable was a series of military clashes in the summer of 1969 over some riverine islands in the Amur.

Today
China and Russia are anything but natural partners. While their economic interests may seem complementary, geography dictates that their actual connections will be sharply limited. Moreover, in their roles of resource provider versus producer, they actually have a commercial relationship analogous to that of Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries versus the United States — with all the angst and distrust that suggests.

Strategically, the two tend to swim in different pools, but they still share a borderland. Borderlands — where one great state flows into another — are dangerous places, as their precise locations ebb and flow with the geopolitical tides. And the only thing more likely to generate borderland friction than when one side is strong and the other weak is when both sides are strong. Currently, both China and Russia are becoming more powerful simultaneously, creating ample likelihood that the two will slide toward confrontation in regions of overlapping interest.

So why Stratfor’s interest in the topic? The primary reason the United States is the most powerful state in the international system is that it faces no challengers on its continent. (Canada is de facto integrated into the United States, and Mexico — even were it stable and rich — would still be separated from the United States by a sizable desert.) This allows the United States to develop in peace and focus its efforts on projecting its power outward rather than defending itself. For the United States to be threatened, a continental-sized power or coalition of similar or greater size would need to arise. So long as China and Russia remain at odds, the United States does not have to work very hard to maintain its position.

Which brings us back to the island battles that cemented the Sino-Soviet split: Russia is giving them back.

On July 21, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov put Russia’s final signature — in a deal already signed and ratified by both sides — to a deal that commits Russia to the imminent removal of its forces from 67 square miles of territory on a series of Amur riverine islands. The Russians call them Tarabarov and Bolshoi Ussuriysky, the Chinese call them Yinlong Dao and Heixiazi Dao. These are two of the islands over which the Chinese and Soviets battled in 1969, formalizing the Sino-Soviet split. The final pullout of Russian forces is expected within a month.

When two states enter into alliance, the first thing they must do is stop treating each other as foes. There is a bit of wiggle room if the two states do not border each other as the United States and Soviet Union did not during World War II. But in cases of a shared land border, it is devilishly difficult to believe that those on the other side of the line have your back if they are still gunning for a piece of your backyard. If China and Russia are going to stand together against the United States — or really, anyone — in any way, shape or form, the first thing they have to do is stop standing against each other. And that is just about to happen.

There are still plenty of reasons to doubt the durability of this development. In terms of modern warfare, the islands are strategic irrelevancies, so their surrender is not exactly a huge gesture of trust. Achieving any semblance of economic integration between the two powers still would be more trouble and expensive than it would be worth, making any deepening of the bilateral relationship difficult. Russia’s demographic slide instills a perfectly logical paranoia in the Kremlin; Russians are outnumbered 7 to 1 by their “partner” in terms of population and 3 to 1 in terms of economic size — something that Russian pride will find far harder to accept than merely handing over some islands. There is no substitute to the American market for China. Period. Sharing Central Asia is simply impossible because both sides need the same resources to achieve and maintain their strategic aims. And neither power has a particularly sterling reputation when it comes to confidence building.

Yet while Moscow is known for many, many things, sacrificing territory — especially territory over which blood has been shed — is not on that list. Swallowing some pride to raise the prospect of a Chinese-Russian alliance is something that should not pass unnoticed. Burying the hatchet in the islands of the Amur is the first step on the improbable road to a warmer bilateral relationship, and raises the possibility of a coalition of forces with the geographic foundation necessary to challenge the United States at its very core.

Such a Chinese-Russian alliance remains neither natural nor likely. But, with the territory handover, it has just become something that it was not a week ago: possible.

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb...

This is why Obama should never be Commander in Chief:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRGru2CPC4E

Obama yo Mama Pt.1

All of this is from http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm.

First up is the critical and often ignored issue of abortion. http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm

Undecided on whether life begins at conception
Q: Do you personally believe that life begins at conception?
A: This is something that I have not come to a firm resolution on. I think it's very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? So I don't presume to know the answer to that question. What I know is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we're having these debates.
Source: 2008 Democratic Compassion Forum at Messiah College Apr 13, 2008

If “potential life” is something that holds a moral weight to it, why hasn’t Obama come to a firm resolution on it? What if other decisions come up that hold a moral weight to them and he cannot come to a resolution on them? Obviously, Obama has decided to not decide. On this issue, he is a man of indecision. If he does state that life begins at conception, the pro-lifers will wonder why he’s rated 100 by NARAL. If he states that life does not begin at conception, he loses some of that attractive polish that goes along with his indecisiveness.

OBAMA RECORD
Throughout his career, in both the Illinois Senate & the US Senate, Obama has stood up for a women's right to choose, consistently earning 100% ratings from pro-choice groups.
Source: Campaign booklet, "Blueprint for Change", p. 35-36 Feb 2, 2008
Rated 100% by NARAL on pro-choice votes in 2005, 2006 & 2007
Sen. Obama received the following scores on NARAL Pro-Choice America's Congressional Record on Choice.
2007: 100 percent
2006: 100 percent
2005: 100 percent
Source: NARAL voting record, www.ProChoiceAmerica.org Jan 1, 2008

Self explanatory.

Stem cells hold promise to cure 70 major diseases
Barack Obama believes we owe it to the American public to explore the potential of stem cells to treat the millions of people suffering from debilitating and life threatening diseases. Stem cells hold the promise of treatments and cures for more than 70 major diseases and conditions such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease, spinal cord injuries, and diabetes. As many as 100 million Americans may benefit from embryonic stem cell research. As president, Obama would:
Promote Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Support Medical Advancement and Innovation
Expand the Number of Stem Cell Lines Available for Research
Ensure Ethical Standards
Obama introduced legislation in the Illinois Senate to ensure that only those embryos that would otherwise be discarded could be used and that donors would have to provide written consent for the use of the embryos.
Source: Campaign website, BarackObama.com, "Resource Flyers" Aug 26, 2007

Yes, regular stem cell research is fine. Embryonic stem cell research is not. Also, how is it guaranteed that those “left over” embryos would otherwise be discarded if not used for embryonic stem cell research? The fact about the whole issue is this: Adult stem cells hold more potential than embryonic stem cells. If the evidence points in favor of adult stem cells, and if we really care about finding news ways to cure diseases and such, how come the media and liberals are adamant on embryonic stem cell research? It almost reminds me of the eugenics movement in the early twentieth century.

[An abortion protester at a campaign event] handed me a pamphlet. "Mr. Obama, I know you're a Christian, with a family of your own. So how can you support murdering babies?"
I told him I understood his position but had to disagree with it. I explained my belief that few women made the decision to terminate a pregnancy casually; that any pregnant woman felt the full force of the moral issues involved when making that decision; that I feared a ban on abortion would force women to seek unsafe abortions, as they had once done in this country. I suggested that perhaps we could agree on ways to reduce the number of women who felt the need to have abortions in the first place.
"I will pray for you," the protester said. "I pray that you have a change of heart." Neither my mind nor my heart changed that day, nor did they in the days to come. But that night, before I went to bed, I said a prayer of my own-that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that had been extended to me.
Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.197-8 Oct 1, 2006

Just one question comes out of this: Who says that legalized abortion equals safe abortion? Read Lime 5 and tell me that legal abortion means safe abortion.


Constitution is a living document; no strict constructionism.
When we get in a tussle, we appeal to the Founding Fathers and the Constitution's ratifiers to give direction. Some, like Justice Scalia, conclude that the original understanding must be followed and if we obey this rule, democracy is respected.
Others, like Justice Breyers, insist that sometimes the original understanding can take you only so far--that on the truly big arguments, we have to take context, history, and the practical outcomes of a decision into account.
I have to side with Justice Breyer's view of the Constitution--that it is not a static but rather a living document and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.
I see democracy as a conversation to be had. According to this conception, the genius of Madison's design is not that it provides a fixed blueprint for action. It provides us with a framework and rules, but all its machinery are designed to force us into a conversation.
Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p. 89-92 Oct 1, 2006

This is downright frightening. The Constitution is a dead document, plain and simple.

1. Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance.
Obama scores 0% by the NRLC on abortion issues
OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2006 NRLC scores as follows:
0% - 15%: pro-choice stance (approx. 174 members)
16%- 84%: mixed record on abortion (approx. 101 members)
85%-100%: pro-life stance (approx. 190 members)
About the NRLC (from their website, www.nrlc.org):
The ultimate goal of the National Right to Life Committee is to restore legal protection to innocent human life. The primary interest of the National Right to Life Committee and its members has been the abortion controversy; however, it is also concerned with related matters of medical ethics which relate to the right to life issues of euthanasia and infanticide. The Committee does not have a position on issues such as contraception, sex education, capital punishment, and national defense. The National Right to Life Committee was founded in 1973 in response to the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision, legalizing the practice of human abortion in all 50 states, throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy.
The NRLC has been instrumental in achieving a number of legislative reforms at the national level, including a ban on non-therapeutic experimentation of unborn and newborn babies, a federal conscience clause guaranteeing medical personnel the right to refuse to participate in abortion procedures, and various amendments to appropriations bills which prohibit (or limit) the use of federal funds to subsidize or promote abortions in the United States and overseas.
In addition to maintaining a lobbying presence at the federal level, NRLC serves as a clearinghouse of information for its state affiliates and local chapters, its individual members, the press, and the public.
Source: NRLC website 06n-NRLC on Dec 31, 2006

Next, the economy. http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Budget_+_Economy.htm

Can't do anything at home with $12 billion a month on Iraq
The fact that we're spending $12 billion every month in Iraq means that we can't engage in the kind of infrastructure improvements that are going to make us more competitive, we can't deliver on the kinds of health care reforms that Clinton and I are looking for. McCain is willing to have these troops over there for 100 years. The notion that we would sustain that kind of effort and neglect not only making us more secure here at home, more competitive here at home, allow our economy to sink.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate at University of Texas in Austin Feb 21, 2008

Maybe if Obama studied the information, he would see that the money we are spending in Iraq isn’t as much as he thinks. Yes, we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars. But how does that compare to our current GDP? Hmmm….

“Critics of the war in Iraq often complain about the 'escalating cost of the war.' Listening to them, you’d never know that the war is one of the least expensive in American history.
Robert Whaples, professor of economics at Wake Forest University, has measured the cost of each major American war up through the first Gulf War. We took these costs and compared them to the cost of the Iraq war and found that the Iraq experience has consumed a smaller percentage of GDP (just 2 percent of one year’s wealth creation) than every other American war except the first Gulf War (which measured just 1 percent of GDP).
This stands in stark contrast to the Vietnam experience, which opponents have often attempted to liken to the Iraq war. Vietnam comprised a much heartier 12 percent of GDP at the time. Other conflicts, such as World War II, took a remarkable 130 percent of a year’s GDP to see through to success.”

Check out the article. It has a nice little graph, too. http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_buzzcharts/buzzcharts200601230854.asp

Besides, the health care reforms that Obama and Hillary want to push would probably break the bank. You want change? Good, because that is all you will have left in your pockets.

Bush & GOP dug budget hole; need years to dig out
Q: Would it be a priority of your administration to balance the federal budget every year?
A: Over the last seven years, what we've seen is an economy that's out of balance because of the policies of George Bush and the Republicans in Congress. Not only do we have fiscal problems, but we've got growing inequality. People are working harder for less and they're seeing costs go up. So what I want to do is get the long-term fundamentals right. That means that we are investing in education & infrastructure, structuring fair trade deals, and also ending the war in Iraq. That is money that can be applied at home for critical issues.
Q: So a priority to balance the federal budget, or not?
A: We are not going to be able to dig ourselves out of that hole in 1 or 2 years. But if we can get on a path of sustained growth, end the war in Iraq, end some of the special interest loopholes and earmarks that have been clogging up the system, then I think we can return to a path of a balanced budget.
Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Democratic debate Dec 13, 2007

Last time I checked, Congress is as involved with the budget-making process just as much as the President. Wait, isn’t Congress the same bunch that included so many earmarks and pork-barrel spending? Shouldn’t Obama be addressing his fellow congressmen instead?

Rejects free market vision of government
In a 2005 commencement address, Obama described the conservative philosophy of government as "to give everyone one big refund on their government, divvy it up by individual portions, in the form of tax breaks, hand it out, and encourage everyone to use their share to go buy their own health care, their own retirement plan, their own child care, their own education, and so on. In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society. But in our past there has been another term for it, Social Darwinism, every man or woman for him or herself. It's a tempting idea, because it doesn't require much thought or ingenuity." Obama has rejected this free market vision of government, preferring to see the power of the state as something that can serve the public interest. According to Obama, "We're going to put more money into education than we have. WE have to invest in human capital."
Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.155 Oct 30, 2007

This made me laugh for a significant amount of time. According to Merriam Webster online, Social Darwinism is defined as:

“Main Entry: social Darwinism
Function: noun
Date: 1887
an extension of Darwinism to social phenomena; specifically : a sociological theory that sociocultural advance is the product of intergroup conflict and competition and the socially elite classes (as those possessing wealth and power) possess biological superiority in the struggle for existence.”

I don’t think competition in a capitalist system can be defined as Social Darwinism. It is a stretch to say the least. I think it is more along the lines of the government allowing you to take the resources you have and use them as you wish like a dignified human being. Obama’s idea of the government’s role is for those who want to suck up to the government for help, for those who want the government to run their lives for them. I cannot put it any other way.

Time for some civil rights. http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Civil_Rights.htm

People want to move beyond our divisions
I am absolutely convinced that white, black, Latino, Asian, people want to move beyond our divisions, and they want to join together in order to create a movement for change in this country. I'm not entirely faulting the media because, look, race is a factor in our society. There's no doubt that in a race where you've got an African-American, and a woman, and there's no doubt that that has piqued interest. They are desperate to move beyond the same, old arguments that we've been having and start actually getting something done in this country. The Republicans may have a different attitude, because they haven't been appearing before forums that are diverse. The policies that they have promoted have not been good at providing ladders for upward mobility and opportunity for all people. That is a fight that all of us will fight. But I don't want us to get drawn into this notion that somehow this is going to be a race that splits along racial lines.
Source: 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Democratic debate Jan 21, 2008

Maybe you should give your pastor and former congregation a little lesson in how we need to move on, Obama.

Apply affirmative action to poor white college applicants
Q: You said about affirmative action that affluent African Americans like your daughters should probably be treated as advantaged when they apply to college, and that poor white children should get special consideration.
A: The basic principle that should guide discussions not just on affirmative action but how we are admitting young people to college generally is, how do we make sure that we're providing ladders of opportunity for people? Race is still a factor in our society. And I think that for universities to say, "we're going to take into account the hardships that somebody has experienced because they're black or Latino or women..."
Q: Even if they're wealthy?
A: I think that's something that they can take into account, but it can only be in the context of looking at the whole situation of the young person. So I still believe in affirmative action as a means of overcoming both historic and potentially current discrimination, but I think that it can't be a quota system.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008

I agree that Affirmative Action should not be a quota system. I will go further, though: It shouldn’t be a system at all. Affirmative Action is just another form of discrimination in our society. If you are black or latino, they will look at you and say, “This person may have been disadvantaged throughout their life because their skin color is different.” Affirmative Action is a way for the college systems and government to encourage a feeling of victimization; by acknowledging Affirmative Action, you are letting the government classify you as someone who is “under privileged” simply because of your race or skin color.

Q: You had one supporter on a Bible tour in South Carolina who said that homosexuality was a curse and that he had been cured by prayer. Do you believe homosexuality's a curse?
A: No.
Q: Do you believe that it is something that you are born gay or that you can change your behavior?
A: I do not believe being gay or lesbian is a choice. And so I disagree with [that supporter]. But part of what I hope to offer as president is the ability to reach to people that I don't agree with, and the evangelical community is one where the Democratic Party, I think, we have generally seen as hostile. We haven't been reaching out to them, and I think that if we're going to makes significant progress on critical issues that we face, we've got to be able to get beyond our comfort zones and just talk to people we don't like. I've tried to do is to reach out to the evangelical community and tell them very clearly where I disagree.
Source: Meet the Press: 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series Nov 11, 2007

To put it simply, homosexuality is a choice.

Q: If you were back in the Illinois legislature where you served and the issue of civil marriage came before you, how would you have voted on that?
A: My view is that we should try to disentangle what has historically been the issue of the word "marriage," which has religious connotations to some people, from the civil rights that are given to couples, in terms of hospital visitation, in terms of whether or not they can transfer property or Social Security benefits and so forth. So it depends on how the bill would've come up. I would've supported and would continue to support a civil union that provides all the benefits that are available for a legally sanctioned marriage. And it is then, as I said, up to religious denominations to make a determination as to whether they want to recognize that as marriage or not.
Source: 2007 HRC/LOGO debate on gay issues Aug 9, 2007

How, then, does that change things? If it’s simply a matter of receiving benefits and not being socially accepted as being in a “marriage”, how come others do not say the same thing as Obama? Simply stating that a recognized homosexual union is for the benefits of “marriage” and not the condition of being “married” waters down the severity of the debate.

Q: Would you put the fight among gays and lesbians for civil rights on a par with the civil rights movement for African-Americans?
A: My attitude is if people are being treated unfairly and unequally, then it needs to be fixed. So I'm always very cautious about getting into comparisons of victimology. You know, the issues that gays and lesbians face today are different from the issues that were faced by African-Americans under Jim Crow. That doesn't mean, though, that there aren't parallels in the sense that legal status is not equal. And that has to be fixed. I'm going to be more sympathetic not because I'm black. I'm going to be more sympathetic because this has been the cause of my life and will continue to be the cause of my life, making sure that everybody's treated fairly and that we've got an expansive view of America, where everybody's invited in and we are all working together to create the kind of America that we want for the next generation.
Source: 2007 HRC/LOGO debate on gay issues Aug 9, 2007

The major difference between homosexual rights and civil rights is the nature of the subject of discrimination. With civil rights, you had people being discriminated against simply because of their skin color. That is a maddening social travesty. With homosexual rights, people are being discriminated against because of a personal lifestyle choice. For example, not hiring a homosexual on the grounds of a belief that it is immoral is no different than refusing to hire a pusher.

Time for Corporations. http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Corporations.htm

Obama believes that companies should not get billions of dollars in tax deductions for moving overseas. Obama will fight to ensure that public contracts are awarded to companies committed to American workers.
In today's economy, American workers have to compete against high-skilled workers across the globe. Obama will make long-term investments in education, training, & workforce development so that Americans can leverage our strengths--our ingenuity & entrepreneurialism--to create new high-wage jobs
Source: Campaign website, BarackObama.com, "Resource Flyers" Aug 26, 2007

So then let American workers compete! Instead of enforcing ways to hurt companies if they go somewhere else, be appealing to them so that they will not want to leave. Also, outsourcing of jobs here (and overseas, mind you) allows for specialization. If the US isn’t the best place to make automobiles, let someone make them in a place where the environment is pristine auto manufacturing! In the end, everyone will benefit from trade and specialization…that is, if you allow it to happen.



More to come soon! I am extremely busy right now and I just don’t have time to complete all of this in one sitting. I’ll post more Obama stuff later and that will be followed by McCain the Pain.

The SLED Argument and Abortion

I first discovered the SLED argument against abortion when I heard Scott Klusendorf speak at a worldview camp one summer. It is an argument to define the humanity that lies within the womb. It speaks nothing of “choice” or women’s rights; it merely appeals to reason and observation. I love it because it is easy to remember and can be employed with ease. Anyways, here it is in its most basic form. Feel free to take it and build off of it even more than what has been done here. If any other arguments come out of this and hit you like a semi, please (please!) share them. We’re talking about human lives here.

Size – Human beings differ greatly when it comes to the size of our bodies. Sometimes our proportions are different, our weights may differ, or one person may simply be taller than another. No matter the difference, however, it is only reasonable to conclude that the difference does not dictate who is a human and who is not. Andre the Giant is much larger than Hillary Clinton, but that doesn’t mean that Hillary Clinton is less human or inhuman at all based simply upon the fact that she is the smaller of the two. In the same way, how does the size of a fetus (or human embryo, for that matter) determine whether or not it is indeed a human being? In our early years, we typically grow in huge amounts up until adulthood. When we reach our senior years and our body starts to whither, our size can even decrease by certain amounts. The fact is this: Human beings will always differ when it comes to size, and that size is typically determined by age. Why, then, should size decide who is fit to live?

Level of Development – Many see the fetus and human embryo as underdeveloped organisms; it is obvious to see why. However, should we simply eliminate those with mental disabilities because they are “underdeveloped”? What about children who have been born? A toddler is obviously less developed than a physics professor at MIT, but is that reason to kill the toddler over the professor? What about those who choose not to develop themselves? Should we kill the high school drop-out instead of the college student? Does the embryo or fetus have the choice to develop itself? If the high school drop-out has decided not to develop himself, how should we compare him to the fetus? The answer is obvious: Human life should not be valued according to the level of development. If we are going to kill the fetus, which at the point in time has no say in the matter of development, shouldn’t we also be considering the burden that high school drop-outs pose? Of course not.

Environment – Just because the fetus is in the womb doesn’t mean that it is not human. Since we were all in the womb at one point in time, when did we suddenly become human? Did our trip several inches down the birth canal miraculously make us human? Does “Ye Olde C-Section” also make us human? It would be absurd to think so. An actor that lives in a mansion in Beverly Hills is worth no more than a refugee fleeing from the Janjaweed in Sudan. To believe that a human’s immediate surroundings are the measuring stick for the value of life is implying that our value fluctuates throughout the day depending on where we go. Go ahead and laugh, the argument is freakishly illogical.

Degree of Dependency – Because the fetus inside the womb is dependent upon the mother in order to survive, some say that it is not technically “alive” or “human”. However, some documented cases have shown that children can survive outside the womb earlier in term than some think. Also, let me trot out the toddler again: If a four year-old is dependent upon his mother and father for the roof above his head and three square meals a day, should we kill him if we had the choice between him and an independent college student? The answer is obvious.

This is the SLED argument in a nutshell. In a very logical and concise way, it shows that the life inside the womb is indeed precious and no different in its humanity than anyone else. Please feel free to add any arguments for or against it as the topic being covered is of the highest importance.