01.06.09
Posted in Media, Society, Abortion, Politics, Culture, Bioethics, Law at 12:26 pm by Sheila
President Bush has secured, for now, the rights of health care workers to exercise their conscience in practicing medicine morally, while all around the country liberal activism pushes to allow only one choice: theirs. The right of conscience must be protected if we are not to be a socialist state.
The rules make it so medical centers and staff aren’t forced to do abortions or refer for them.
They provide better enforcement for existing federal laws by potentially revoking federal funding from violators and making them certify in writing that they will respect conscience rights.
But these rights are unacceptable to the ‘choice’ crowd, who want their choice made law.
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut says he will lead a fight against the federal rule and is expected to file a lawsuit against it.
Though the new regulations have nothing to do with birth control, Blumenthal is echoing the arguments from leading pro-abortion groups who claim its access will be adversely impacted by them.
He said he will resume working with pro-abortion officials in the other states to derail the pro-life protections for medical centers and staff — slated to take effect on January 20.
Of course, that’s inauguration day. So what will happen to conscience clauses after that?
Here’s some cause for concern:
In April 2007, Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, along with other pro-abortion legislators, re-introduced what is called the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). Denise Burke, legal counsel for Americans United for Life, describes FOCA as “a radical attempt to enshrine abortion-on-demand into American law.” The National Right to Life Committee describes FOCA as an attempt to “invalidate all limits on abortion.” Barack Obama has pledged his support for FOCA and promised Planned Parenthood that if he was elected president, he would sign FOCA into law if the legislation reached his desk.
Amazingly, many Americans still don’t know about the Freedom of Choice Act, a misnomer to beat them all. Here’s a re-cap…
If abortion is established as a “right” on par with the freedom of speech and freedom of religion, no American citizen will be able to object to any woman’s plan to have an abortion. FOCA puts the “right” to abortion on a collision course with the First Amendment rights of freedom of religion and freedom of speech. As [Denise] Burke states, FOCA is “a radical attempt to prematurely end debate about abortion.” Thus, not only can we expect abortions to increase in this country—despite the fact that abortion proponents often call abortion a “tragedy” and something they would like to see decreased in incidence—but no healthcare provider will be able to conscientiously object to a woman’s request to have an abortion. Healthcare providers, then, will be forced to go against their religious and ethical beliefs, or they will have to leave their professions.
Further likely consequences…
To name a few, FOCA will nullify the legal protections that have been afforded to Catholic hospitals, force all medical students to train to perform abortions, overturn parental notification and informed consent laws, and force American taxpayers to fund abortion, which many find morally objectionable.
Nurse and bioethics expert Nancy Valko, a friend, passed along this letter she sent to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:
Dear editor,
As an RN of almost 40 years experience, I am shocked that a St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial (”An unconscionable conscience rule” December 24, 2008) would state that doctors, nurses and pharmacists with ethical objections to participating in certain procedures or treatments just “should choose another profession.” This is not just about abortion. Legalized assisted suicide has just been passed in Washington state in addition to Oregon. Missouri has seen similar efforts. Should we then just choose another state?
And as a recipient of health care for almost 60 years, I am more than nervous about accessing a health care system solely populated by doctors, pharmacists and nurses who are comfortable with ending life.
We have enough problems as it is with medical ethics. We deny conscience rights at our own peril.
Sincerely,
Nancy Valko, RN
Unlike the citizens of Nazi Germany, who didn’t know the extermination had already started in the hospitals, we have been warned.
Permalink
01.04.09
Posted in Church, Society, Abortion, Culture, Bioethics, Law, Science at 7:32 pm by Sheila
On the night of Barack Obama’s victory in the presidential election, in his celebrated speech globally telecast from Grant Park in Chicago, the senator with the most liberal voting record on abortion, who regretted his vote to help a family restore food and water to their dying, impaired daughter, said this:
I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree…
And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn, I may not have won your vote tonight, but I hear your voices. I need your help. And I will be your president, too.”
What did he mean by that?
Was it naivete to hope he would listen to voices who rationally articulate pro-life values? Voices who can explain that civil rights activists have traditionally struggled so that liberty and justice aren’t just for some but for all, and that all excludes no human being? That to deny rights to any human being threatens all human beings. That the Constitution’s guarantees begin with life even before liberty, because without the guarantee of life, everything else becomes arbitrary and conditional. Without the unconditional guarantee of life everything is a privilege that you may be granted or denied…by the privileged class who decides.
Pope Benedict calls this the ‘tyranny of the majority’, when a group in power forms a consensus that replaces truth and justice with whatever they choose as the new belief system. Members of Congress regularly use the term ‘consensus’ to justify rule changes, a de facto power play that sidesteps the question of morality in law and social policy. Senator Obama sidestepped a lot of questions as a legislator advancing the abortion lobby’s agenda, even though his votes and excuses were incoherent in the continuum of the civil rights movement.
Some self-proclaimed pro-life Catholics and Evangelicals helped get Obama elected, so bishops like Chaput of Denver asked them to use whatever influence they had now to advance the right to life, starting with the biological definition of when it begins. Obama seemed to know that, if only briefly, when he gave a rousing speech last Father’s Day at a church saying: “We need fathers to realize that responsibility does not end at conception”. Good reminder. You become a father at conception because you have conceived a child. Can we hope that he gets that, still?
Is it naive to hope he learned a big lesson from his big blunder at the Saddleback Civil Forum when he said that determining when life begins is above his paygrade? After all, it was in that televised interview with Pastor Rick Warren, with whom he has a personal frienship, that Obama also said that being a Christian meant trying to carry out what Christ intends.
But what it also means, I think, is a sense of obligation to embrace not just words, but through deeds, the expectations, I think, that God has for us. And that means thinking about the least of these. It means acting — well, acting justly, and loving mercy, and walking humbly with our God.
I really want to believe him in all these things. When he speaks of taking care of the least of these, as he did often throughout his campaign, can he not see that the smallest, most disabled and vulnerable among us are the least of society’s members who cry out for justice and loving mercy? Again, his message is incoherent if not.
I am hopeful but not naive. Skeptical, but not cynical. Intent on being fair, if to a fault. The Forum has covered the issues and voting records and promises and threats extensively. On election night, in Grant Park, Obama said “at this defining moment, change has come to America”, that people have bent “the arc of history…toward the hope of a better day.”
He also said that “the strength of our nation comes…from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity and unyielding hope.”
In the interim, he has been listening to a lot of voices in transition, changing his position on a number of issues and policies, even against the will of his own base of supporters sometimes. So with unyielding hope for a change in his position on the life issues, I gave him the benefit of time to prove his intentions when he takes office and begins making decisions.
Time’s about up on that.
A policy report published last month on the Office of the President-Elect’s website puts a hole right through the fanciful notion, believed by some evangelicals, that Barack Obama will save a place at the table for pro-lifers.
Titled “Advancing Reproductive Rights and Health in a New Administration,” the report suggests a radical abortion agenda for the first 100 days of Obama’s term.
Yes, it’s on his change.gov site. It is a recommendation at this point, though one from a powerful lobby to whom he has continually bowed in the past. Will Obama go ahead on an earlier promise to Planned Parenthood and sign the Freedom of Choice Act after all? The debate has made world news.
“It’s unimaginable,” she said. “This has been my life’s work. I would hope that something so radical would cause an uprising from people across the United States, demanding that these common-sense laws not be struck with the stroke of a pen.”
There is an uprising, though off the mainstream radar at the moment. Its timing may wind up being late, if Obama acts on FOCA quickly. We can hope he will not. We can believe his promise that he hears the voices of pro-life Americans who did not vote for him. But we cannot not act now. Human rights demand advocacy. Obama has made many promises, and all bets are off at this point on what change means anymore.
Permalink
01.03.09
Posted in Society, Geopolitics, Politics at 8:58 pm by Sheila
….for him to say something about the outbreak of violence in the Middle East.
Some say Israelis acted now because of the ticking clock on the friendly Bush administration.
And, upon his inauguration on Jan. 20, will President Obama undercut Israel’s counterterror offensive before its goals have been reached?
However, Arabs were counting on the opposite. After all…
Obama has said it is one of his priorities to restore America’s image among Muslims.
But now his silence is very loud.
“People recall his campaign slogan of change and hoped that it would apply to the Palestinian situation,” said Jordanian analyst Labib Kamhawi, speaking from Amman, Jordan. “So they look at his silence as a negative sign. They think he is condoning what happened in Gaza because he’s not expressing any opinion.”
“If he does not want to talk politics yet, at least he could address the humanitarian suffering taking place,” Kamhawi added. “He did not even send one signal to the people of this region that he is not happy with what is happening.”
It is not only the Arab world that has noticed the president-elect’s silence: At a gathering of celebrities to condemn Israel’s assault in London on Friday, speakers called on Obama to speak out.
Such calls underscore the challenge confronting a president-elect who has promised to deliver change and who may now face unrealistically high expectations as to how far that change will go.
Permalink
Posted in Media, Society, Politics at 7:35 pm by Sheila
We’ve had a leadership-challenged Congress for quite some time now. Last election moved some of the seats around, putting Democrats in control on Capitol Hill and in the White House. Business is about to begin in the new session. Now what?
Well, the challenge to Congress is now of historic proportion.
Democrats will pack greater clout when the new Congress convenes on Tuesday but they face enormous expectations from voters as they grapple with two wars, a financial crisis and record budget deficits.
And the fact that they won this majority by promising voters change, for the better.
Other Democratic promises include: withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq and redeploying many of them in Afghanistan; expanding health care; bolstering regulation of the financial industry and developing alternative energy sources while curbing pollution that contributes to global warming.
But the roadmap to change has been re-written and the goals redefined (which is politics as usual, actually).
“…Obama needs to lower expectations,” said Paul Light of New York University’s Center for the Study of Congress.
“There is a historic gap between promises made and promises fulfilled. Converting promises into reality is a difficult process,” Light said, noting major legislation must wind through a maze of committees.
But until he’s sworn in, Obama is still smoothly making promises.
“I am optimistic that if we come together to seek solutions that advance not the interests of any party, or the agenda of any one group, but the aspirations of all Americans, then we will meet the challenges of our time,” he said in his party’s weekly radio address.
His chief of staff Rahm Emanuel is helping advance that rhetoric. Or message, if you will. They realize we’re deep into trouble, and their jobs in Washington have become mission critical.
Lawmakers sense that the need for action is urgent, Emanuel said, and they recognize that Congress’s dismal approval ratings would make them easy scapegoats if the gamesmanship continues. “You never allow a serious crisis to go to waste,” Emanuel said. “People sense that we’re at a different moment in time, and that you have to put aside preconceived notions and partisanship to solve problems.”
Remember these lines when they actually get down to business this week, and after the inauguration. The press probably won’t, but never mind them. We have to hold leaders accountable.
Permalink
Posted in Geopolitics, Politics at 5:48 pm by Sheila
It has enabled him to enjoy a vacation and a high public opinion poll on his leadership ability, or at least what the public projects it will be. But alas, it’s show time.
He’s in Washington now, he’s being tested by Arabs and Israelis for all the world to see, and he’ll be sworn in as president in a couple of weeks.
And the world will then start to discover what approach Mr Obama will take towards the problems of Israel and Palestine, the source of so much tension in the Middle East and beyond. Will he invest the full powers of the presidency in the search for peace there, as Bill Clinton did, in the end to little effect? Will he instinctively shy away from the problem, as George Bush did, at any rate to begin with? Or will he try for something wholly new, which might mean finding creative ways to lessen the perception that America is first and foremost a friend to Israel rather than a wholly dispassionate and honest broker?
Leading questions.
A number of big questions remain unanswered about Mr Obama’s Middle Eastern intentions. It is not yet clear, for instance, who will be the new main negotiators on the issue, although he is currently being advised by a clutch of Clinton-era experts which does not seem to presage much in the way of change.
That was the same reaction to some of his Cabinet picks, so the emphasis has shifted to ‘experience’ over ‘change’.
And take a look back at who those Clinton era experts were, as told by one of them, Martin Indyk, and recounted here.
Since the members of Mr Clinton’s peace team were Jewish (Mr Indyk says one Arab journalist called them “the five rabbis”), their neutrality is sometimes questioned. Mr Indyk himself, originally an Australian, once worked for the chief Israeli lobby in America, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, before becoming a diplomat and serving twice as America’s ambassador to Israel. Yet he admits mistakes and avoids blaming Arafat alone, confessing that the “dark side” of the “innocent optimism” with which America tackled diplomacy in the Middle East was a naivety bred of arrogance. The main impression his book leaves is of the unforgiving complexity of this conflict, in a region where many conflicts connect together, and where the interplay of personality and politics can so often trip up history.
So, can anybody claim a fresh “innocent optimism” by the new Obama administration if the team he assembles is from this crew?
And, speaking of being tripped up by history, the Economist’s lead says it best:
IF ONLY men could learn from history.
Good line, that. But as Indyk admits, vision is always clearest in hindsight.
For if Barack Obama intends to make peace between Israel and the Arabs, his first job is to understand why Mr Clinton, the last president to make a real effort to do so, discovered that he could not.
With Mrs. Clinton heading the State Department, that hindsight may not be particularly clear.
Permalink
01.02.09
Posted in Media, Society, Culture at 12:53 am by Sheila
He’s been on vacation for two weeks in Hawaii, out of reach of mainstream media who were confined to the other side of the island. The public hasn’t heard from Obama since his press conferences announcing his cabinet picks, and even then the were carefully controlled so the press had no chance to really question him.
So……on what are the pundits basing a public opinon poll of Obama’s leadership skills?
A national poll suggests that three-quarters of the public thinks President-elect Barack Obama is a strong and decisive leader, the highest marks for a president-elect on that characteristic in nearly three decades.
But he hasn’t done anything yet.
“The public’s rating of his leadership skills is already as high as George W. Bush’s was after 9/11 and easily beats the numbers that both Bush and Bill Clinton got at the start of their first terms in office.”
I want him to succeed, too. But on what are they basing this opinion poll?! He doesn’t have leadership skills yet. They are projecting on him what they hope for.
Eight in ten Americans said Obama inspires confidence, can get things done and is tough enough to be president, three characteristics Americans look for in a leader and the three qualities on which Obama got his highest scores.
He also gets higher marks than Bush did in 2001 on honesty, values, issues, management abilities and compassion.
Great. Let’s re-visit this seriously after he has taken office and begun to make some decisions. Becuase there’s no down time here. The rubber meets the road right now, and we want to know how he will respond. All goodwill currency he bought in the campaign season is cashed in as soon as he takes office.
Permalink
Posted in Media, Society, Politics, Law at 12:33 am by Sheila
And obviously, president-elect Obama doesn’t have a corner on it. Audacity, that is.
It’s the legacy of hometown politics in Chicago, and by extension, Illinois. It’s about to descend on Washington, as if they can get any more outrageous.
As U.S. Senate leadership developed an elaborate set of contingency plans Wednesday to keep Roland Burris from taking over President-elect Barack Obama’s seat, the disputed appointee promised not to “create a scene” when the Senate convenes next week.
If Burris shows up Tuesday to claim the seat given to him by disgraced Gov. Rod Blagojevich, the outcomes range from a denial of entry to a limbo where he can hire staff but not vote.
Here in Chicago, it’s just beyond politics as usual. But while the rest of the country celebrates the New Year, politicians here and in Washington are making all sorts of contingency plans, with Governor Blagojevich still on the loose (the Illinois General Assembly’s fault), and Roland Burris acting erratically.
On Wednesday, Burris’ lawyers took the first legal action in what could be a prolonged court fight, seeking to force Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White to certify Blagojevich’s paperwork making the appointment.
White has dodged attempts to comply with this certification process. For those of you outside Chicago or Illinois, Secretary of State Jesse White is black. Politicians like former Black Panther Bobby Rush insist that Obama’s senate seat go to a black man, just because he is succeeding a black man. Which injects race back into politics after Obama succeeded in all but removing it.
Futhermore…
To appreciate irony on this scale, it was only a few weeks ago that Burris was saying it would be “reprehensible” for Blagojevich to name anyone to Obama’s senate seat after his corruption charges. Something has changed. Welcome to Chicago style politics.
Should Burris appear in Washington without that certification, armed police officers stand ready to bar him from the Senate floor, said a Democratic official briefed on Senate leaders’ plans.
That’s one plan, and it’s pretty dramatic. But they’re planning for all possibilities. And with Blagojevich, it could be anything.
Leadership also is considering the possibility of Blagojevich appearing in person to escort Burris. Ironically, the scandal-plagued governor would be allowed onto the Senate floor, because sitting governors are allowed floor privileges, while Burris would not without certification. Blagojevich spokesman Lucio Guerrero said the governor had not decided whether he will appear in Washington next week with Burris.
Anything could happen at this point.
Senate leaders have expressed no willingness to negotiate and have vowed to bar anyone appointed by Blagojevich because of his alleged attempt to sell Obama’s seat.
Interesting side note…
When Republican politicians are caught in a scandal, all we hear in the mainstream media is that “REPUBLICAN governor/senator/congressman” says whatever the latest response is to the scandal. In this case, we’re hearing precious little of the Democrat branding. To say that Obama does not need this just before his inauguration is an audacious underestimation of your intelligence. So I won’t say it.
Read this Trib article to get a sense of how ridiculous this has become, even to those of us locally who have known Chicago and Illinois politics well for decades.
Here’s a matter of minor annoyance: Those highly paid, big name news anchors and analysts refer solemnly to Illinois’ ‘pay for play’ scheme under Blagojevich. Respectfully, we’d like them to get it straight.
Former governor George Ryan is serving time for corruption in the ‘license for bribes’ scandal. Current governor Rod Blagojevich is charged with corruption in the ‘pay to play’ scandal. It may be semantics for some. But for us beleaguered citizens of Illinois, it’s a matter of respect for our integrity that you get straight what we’re dealing with. After all, we just produced the next president of the United States.
Permalink
01.01.09
Posted in Society at 12:27 am by Sheila
Peace on earth.
“If people look only to their own interests, our world will certainly fall apart.”
Time to resolve anew to look to the needs of others. We’ve got to hold this together.
Permalink
12.31.08
Posted in Society at 12:29 pm by Sheila
In every time zone, people seem to be happy to bid 2008 adieu….and good riddance.
Fireworks exploded in a kaleidoscopic shower of light over Sydney’s shimmering harbor Wednesday, as the world’s first major city to ring in 2009 celebrated the end of a decidedly rocky year with cheers, beers and a sense of relief.
Spectator Randolph King, 63, of York, England, whose retirement fund was gutted in the global financial crisis, summed up the feeling of many across the world as 2008 came to a close: “I’m looking forward to 2009,” he said. “Because it can’t get much worse.”
The piece lists obvious woes from the past year, and it’s been a tough one.
But in reading those comments by folks who lament they’ve lost so much financially and have nothing to celebrate, I’m reminded of something a man said after his young wife was struck with a sudden heart attack and died. Going through her things, he saw items she wouldn’t use or wear except for ’special occasions’. Choking up with tears, he said “Every day you’re alive is a special occasion.” I’ve never forgotten that.
So, celebrate the new beginning. And every day of the new year.
In the Philippines, President Arroyo looked toward the future.
“I pray for greater peace and stability,” Arroyo said. “I hope that we can all work together as a global community to weather these storms.”
The hope comes from the prayer.
Permalink
Posted in Media, Society, Politics, Culture at 1:02 am by Sheila
I just wrote a post combining several news sources and weaving them into one narrative from here in Illinois, where the governor has been known by that name for longer than the national media have even known his name.
But as has been the case too often lately, when I go to post the piece on the blog site, it disappears, requiring it all to be re-written again. No time for that now.
Here are some of the articles I linked to, with the narrative that this remains a circus, and this has reminded us that it’s about race, after all.
Blagojevich is defiant, and though we know this, nobody saw it coming.
Even president-elect Obama doesn’t want this outcome.
The story remains an enormous distraction…..and disturbance.
At the press conference, Blagojevich brought more trouble, including the issue of race, to an already florid scandal. He announced that he was appointing a successor, former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris, to Barack Obama’s vacated U.S. Senate seat — a move that will continue to roil the political waters in Illinois and ensure a continuing distraction for the President-elect. By naming Burris, the governor blatantly ignored warnings by Senate majority leader Harry Reid that any Blagojevich appointee would not be seated by the Senate. The governor also belied the assessment of his own defense attorney, who earlier said that Blagojevich would not be naming an Obama successor. At his press conference, the governor said he was “required” to make the appointment lest the people of Illinois lose their voice in the Senate, embodied by two Senators. Blagojevich is the only person empowered to fill an empty Senate seat from Illinois.
The land of Lincoln is currently la-la land, and it is unbefitting of the past president from here and the future president.
Integrity and leadership have to be earned, and Blagojevich has lost both, if he ever had either. And if we’ve learned anything from the Obama candidacy and election to the presidency, it’s that we either are beyond the color of skin or should be. For former Black Panther Bobby Rush to be out there at Blagojevich’s side and on the news shows saying the senate has to confirm Roland Burris based on the color of his skin sets the civil rights movement back decades and injects race into politics again. Ironic that it’s over Obama’s seat.
Those remarks shouldn’t be dignified with the attention they’re getting. But then, people are always attracted to a circus.
Permalink
« Previous entries ·