Pledge to Fund a New Paper on Abortion Rights!

After a hiatus in 2012, I'm sorry to report that "Personhood for Zygotes" is on the ballot again in Colorado in 2014. However, I'm pleased to announce that Ari Armstrong and I will update 2010 policy paper in defense of abortion rights in light of the very much changed political landscape. Once again, we need your support to make that happen!


Colorado's New "Personhood for Zygotes" Amendment

Despite the defeats of "personhood" measures in 2008 and 2010, the crusaders against abortion rights have returned with yet another attempt to grant the full legal rights of personhood to fertilized eggs.

The ballot question reads:

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution protecting pregnant women and unborn children by defining "person" and "child" in the Colorado criminal code and the Colorado wrongful death act to include unborn human beings? (Full Text)

If successful, this measure would outlaw therapeutic and elective abortions, common fertility treatments, and popular forms of birth control. It would subject women and their doctors to intrusive police controls and unjust criminal prosecutions. It would force Coloradoans to abide by the deeply religious and sectarian view that the fertilized egg is imbued with rights from God.

Due to its misleading wording -- particularly its talk of "protecting pregnant women" -- 2014's Amendment 67 will likely fare significantly better in the polls than the "personhood" amendments proposed in 2008 and 2010. It's unlikely to pass, but that doesn't mean that abortion rights are secure. The dangerous ideology of "personhood" has spread like wildfire in the past four years among religious conservatives. In the 2012 presidential election, every Republican candidate except Mitt Romney endorsed "personhood for zygotes."

The ideology of "personhood for zygotes" must be steadfastly opposed -- based on a firm understanding of rights in pregnancy -- not merely because "it goes too far."


Support a 2014 Paper in Defense of Abortion Rights

To combat the dangerous ideology of "personhood" and defend abortion rights on principle, Ari Armstrong and I will publish a new version of their policy paper on the "personhood" movement. The updates to the paper will focus on the new language in 2014's Amendment 67, the widespread embrace of "personhood" by the Republican Party in the 2012 election, the synergy between "incremental" and "personhood" approaches to abortion bans, the defeat of a "personhood" amendment in Mississippi, and more.

However, that work depends on your support! The update to the paper will only go forward if at least $1500 is pledged by August 20th. That will help pay for the many hours of work this update will require. If sufficient funds are pledged, the 2014 paper will be published by September 17th.

So, if you want to help defend abortion rights in this 2014 election, please pledge! Any amount is welcome, and your pledge is not due until the paper is published.



Note: Due to efforts of the Center for Competitive Politics on CSG's behalf, Diana hopes that she will not have to report on funds collected for this project, as she's been obliged to do in prior elections. Time -- or rather the judge -- will tell. In any case, pledges for this paper are helping us have a viable case with which to challenge Colorado's onerous campaign finance laws.

If you have any questions about the project or pledging, please email me.

Read more...

Conservative Allies in Politics: Philosophy in Action Podcast

On Sunday's episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on conservative allies in politics. The question was:

Aren't politicians like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul allies in the struggle for liberty? Although I'm an atheist and a novice Objectivist, I've always wondered why so many advocates of individual rights oppose candidates and movements that seem to agree with us on a great many issues. Despite their other warts, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are the most likely men to promote our causes. The notion that they evangelize is dubious. And even if true, are there better alternatives today? I've also seen this attitude towards Libertarian candidates and their party. Ronald Reagan was the only President who advanced the ball towards free markets in the last fifty years, and yet people condemn him because of his position on abortion and because of his religious/political partnerships. I've never understood this. Shouldn't we embrace the advocates of free markets out there today, even if not perfect?

My Answer, In Brief: The Republicans – including "better" Republicans like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul – are a dangerous mixture of some economic liberty, nationalism, and theocracy. Instead of discrediting liberty by supporting them, focus on the issues.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

• Duration: 25:38
• Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Abortion, Activism, Conservatism, Elections, Free Society, GLBT, Immigration, Politics, Progressivism, Voting

Links:

• Philosophy in Action: Objectivism Versus Libertarianism and The Libertarian Party
• With God On Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America by William Martin
• The "Personhood" Movement Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh
• The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh
• Rand Paul on immigration and Ted Cruz on immigration
• Sen. Rand Paul introduces 'fetal personhood' bill to outlaw abortion
• Denver Post: How the Republicans Lost My Vote by Paul Hsieh

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on conservative allies in politics, flunking a student, guilt about refusing requests, and more – is available here: Episode of 20 July 2014.

You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Thursday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Read more...

Becoming an Educated Voter: Philosophy in Action Podcast

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on becoming an educated voter that might be of interest. The question was:

How should I educate myself so that I can cast informed votes in elections? I'm 25, and I've never voted in any local, state, or national election. I have good reason for that, I think: I've never been able to educate myself sufficiently on the candidates to be certain of who to vote for. Also, as a marketing student with a passion for advertising and public relations, I don't think I could vote until I'd seen the inside of a campaign team as a member of it, so that I have a personal understanding of how much the candidate presented is real or idealized. I know that that is unrealistic, because I wouldn't know which candidate to work for. Instead of that, what steps could I take to inform myself, without consuming too much time, so that I could vote in the next presidential election?

My Answer, In Brief: A person ought to educate himself before voting, and that's relatively easy to do with a bit of research into the candidate's positions and record.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

• Duration: 12:58
• Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Elections, Politics, Voting

Links:

• Philosophy in Action: Dr. Eric Daniels on Why Voting Doesn't Matter

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on identifying a central purpose, Immanuel Kant on sex, becoming an educated voter, atheists patronizing religious businesses, and more – is available here: Episode of 15 September 2013.

You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Read more...

Paul Sherman on Free Speech in Elections: Philosophy in Action Podcast

I interviewed Institute for Justice attorney Paul Sherman about "Free Speech in Elections" on Philosophy in Action Radio on Wednesday, 9 January 2013.

You can listen to or download the audio podcast any time. You'll find the podcast on the episode's archive page, as well as below.

Podcast: 9 January 2013: Paul Sherman on "Free Speech in Elections"

Many people support restrictions on spending in elections, particularly by corporations, in the name of "transparency" and "accountability." Institute for Justice attorney Paul Sherman takes a very different view. He argues persuasively that any restrictions on campaign spending are violations of freedom of speech. He has successfully argued that view in courts across the country.

Paul Sherman is an attorney with the Institute for Justice. He litigates cutting-edge constitutional cases protecting the First Amendment, economic liberty, property rights and other individual liberties in both federal and state courts. Paul has litigated extensively in the area of campaign finance. He currently represents a group of Florida political activists in Worley v. Roberts, a challenge to state campaign finance laws that burden the right of citizens to pool money for independent ads about ballot issues. Paul also served as co-counsel in SpeechNow.org v. FEC, which the Congressional Research Service described as representing one of "the most fundamental changes to campaign finance law in decades."

Listen or Download:

• Duration: 59:19
• Download: Standard MP3 File (20.4 MB)

Topics:

• Common federal and state campaign finance laws
• The history of campaign finance laws
• Breadth in decisions, and my case
• The results of campaign finance laws
• Private enforcement of campaign finance laws
• The value of "transparency" and "accountability" in elections
• Money as a form of speech
• Protections for corporate speech
• Privacy and campaign contributions
• The irrelevance of funding to campaigns
• SuperPACS
• Individuals versus groups in campaign finance
• The Institute for Justice's current cases and strategy
• Truly supporting the First Amendment
• How to effectively defend free speech

Relevant Links:

• Institute for Justice
• Wikipedia: Benjamin Tillman
• Oral Argument in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Tags:

Activism, Campaign Finance, Elections, Free Speech, Government, Law, Politics, Rights

Episode Sponsor

This episode was sponsored the incomparable Audible.com.

I've subscribed to Audible since 2005. With my "Platinum Annual Membership," I enjoy 24 books per year for just under $10 per book. I read more books, thanks to Audible. I listen to books while in my car, as well as while cooking, cleaning, gardening, and more. I enjoy books more too, particularly fiction: a good reader adds a rich layer of color to the text.

If you want to try the delights of listening to books, be sure to take advantage of our special podcast-only offer of free 30-day trial subscription. You'll get a great deal, and you'll support Philosophy in Action in the process. It's a win-win – and I love that!

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Support
Our WorkRemember, Philosophy in Action Radio is available to anyone, free of charge. That's because our goal is to spread rational principles for real life far and wide, as we do every week to thousands of listeners. So if you enjoy and value our work, please contribute to our tip jar! We suggest $5 per episode or $20 per month, but any amount is welcome. You can send your contribution via Dwolla, PayPal, or US Mail.

Read more...

Paul Sherman on Free Speech in Elections: Wednesday on Philosophy in Action Radio

On tonight's episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I'll interview Institute for Justice attorney Paul Sherman about "Free Speech in Elections."

This episode of internet radio airs on this evening, 9 January 2013, at 6 PT / 7 MT / 8 CT / 9 ET in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can listen to the podcast later.

Here's a bit more about the show:

Many people support restrictions on spending in elections, particularly by corporations, in the name of "transparency" and "accountability." Institute for Justice attorney Paul Sherman takes a very different view. He claims that any restrictions on campaign spending are violations of freedom of speech, and he has successfully argued that view in courts across the country.

Paul Sherman is an attorney with the Institute for Justice. He litigates cutting-edge constitutional cases protecting the First Amendment, economic liberty, property rights and other individual liberties in both federal and state courts. Paul has litigated extensively in the area of campaign finance. He currently represents a group of Florida political activists in Worley v. Roberts, a challenge to state campaign finance laws that burden the right of citizens to pool money for independent ads about ballot issues. Paul also served as co-counsel in SpeechNow.org v. FEC, which the Congressional Research Service described as representing one of "the most fundamental changes to campaign finance law in decades."

To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat.

Again, if you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the audio podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: 9 January 2013.

I hope that you join us on Wednesday evening, but if you can't attend live, be sure to listen to the podcast later!

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Read more...

The 2012 Election Results: Philosophy in Action Podcast

In the 11 November 2012 episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I discussed the 2012 election results, and I thought it might be of interest. The question was:

What should we think of the results of the 2012 election? Many free-market advocates are despairing over the election results, particularly the re-election of President Obama. They claim that America has sunk to a new low in re-electing an openly socialistic and egalitarian hater of America. Do you think that such despair is warranted? Also, how can intellectuals, activists, and others effectively promote individual rights over the next four years?

My Answer, In Brief: Advocates of free markets need to stop despairing and start thinking about how to make progress over the next four years.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

• Duration: 43:21
• Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Alcohol/Drugs, America, Apocalypticism, Democratic Party, Elections, Gay Marriage, Immigration, Politics, Republican Party, Rights Relevant Links:

• Philosophy in Action: Pursuing Personal Values in an Imperfect World

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread. A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on the 2012 election results, explaining a break-up, keeping contact with questionable family, and more – is available as a podcast here: Episode of 11 November 2012. Philosophy in Action Radio broadcasts every Sunday morning and Wednesday evening. For information on upcoming shows and more, visit the Episodes on Tap.

Read more...

Politics Corrupts Money

In this blog post for The Objective Standard, Ari Armstrong explains that money doesn't corrupt politics, as advocates of campaign finance laws claim. Instead, politics corrupts money: "Although the source of money is virtuous because it is production, money is corrupted when it is used to buy political favors." Indeed, and such political favors can only be bought in a mixed economy in which some people's rights may be violated for the right price.

So if you think that campaign finance laws can keep politics pure, think again... and go read the whole post!

Be sure to consider what he says about Colorado's Amendment 65:

Amendment 65 is a futile attempt by the left to solve the problems created by leftist policies. As I argued in my debate with Gordon, the censorship of political speech that Amendment 65 advocates will not solve the problem of influence peddling; it will only make that problem worse. As I pointed out, under Amendment 65, the proposed censorship laws would themselves be crafted by the influence peddlers.

Demanding that the foxes guard the henhouse is not wise politics: it's a power-grab by the foxes and their allies in the henhouse.

Read more...

Personhood 2012: Ballot or No Ballot?

According to Colorado's Secretary of State, the proposed "personhood" amendment won't make the 2012 ballot due to lack of signatures -- and that decision is final. The Denver Post reports:

The Colorado secretary of state's office said Tuesday the proposed anti-abortion "personhood" amendment will not be on the 2012 ballot — no matter the outcome of proponents' planned legal action to prove they collected enough voter signatures.

The ballot certification deadline was Monday. Even if a judge rules personhood sponsors' petition was sufficient, the measure would have to wait for the 2014 general election, secretary of state spokesman Andrew Cole told The Post Tuesday.

However, that's not the end of the story. Personhood USA takes a different view:

Personhood USA founder Keith Mason said Tuesday supporters have a 30-day window to take legal action challenging Secretary of State Scott Gessler's Aug. 29 determination that the Personhood Amendment failed to make the ballot — falling short by 3,859 signatures.

Petitioners collected 82,246 valid signatures of the 86,105 required, according to state officials. "We have until Sept. 28 to file our lawsuit. And the more we look, line by line, the more confident we are we have enough signatures," Mason said. "We have recovered thousands of signatures."

Personhood USA seems serious in their desire to make a legal challenge, as seen in this September 14th email to supporters:

We need your help! Last month we told you that volunteers worked tirelessly to collect over 112,000 signatures to get the Personhood Amendment on the ballot in Colorado. But the Secretary of State in Colorado has denied our request by claiming that we are 3,700 signatures short of qualifying for the ballot. This a purely political act, as many of the signatures discarded were actually valid signatures!

We must file a court challenge within 30 days, and we fully intend to do so. But we need your financial help! In order to continue our fight for the unborn and protect all innocent life we need to raise over $50,000 to combat the political machine in Colorado. ...

They might win that legal challenge -- or they might lose it. Basically, right now nobody knows whether "personhood" will be on the ballot in 2012 or not.

That's hugely frustrating for me. All plans to update Ari Armstrong's and my 2010 policy paper The "Personhood" Movement Is Anti-Life are up in the air until this matter is resolved. Right now, I'm not sure what kind of revisions we'll want to make, because we may want to talk about the new language of the 2012 ballot measure or not.

Also, I don't know whether I'll want to raise money for those revisions or not, as I did in 2010. I'm not willing to slog through the burdens and risks of reporting again, as would be required if "personhood" makes the ballot, unless, that is, the court rules in our favor next week. In that case, I won't have to report, even if "personhood" is on the ballot. That would be awesome.

Gah! The uncertainty is just killing me. These matters will be resolved soon, I know, but time is running short!

Read more...

No Personhood on Colorado's Ballot in 2012?

Colorado Personhood Measure Falls Short Of Ballot:

Backers of a controversial fetal personhood measure in Colorado have failed to gather enough signatures to get the proposal on the November ballot, Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler announced on Wednesday.

The measure, which would define a fertilized egg as a person, fell nearly 4,000 short of the 86,105 signatures it needed to qualify for the ballot. The proposal has appeared on statewide ballots in Colorado twice before, in 2008 and 2010, and was soundly rejected by the voters both times.

A spokeswoman for Personhood USA, the anti-abortion group behind the nationwide push for fetal personhood laws, contended that the Secretary of State's office had made a mistake in counting the ballots. "We have more than enough valid signatures that were discounted by the Secretary of State's office," Jennifer Mason told The Huffington Post.

It sounds like Personhood USA will appeal Secretary of State Scott Gessler's ruling, so for now, we just have to wait and see.

Colorado's Republicans must be (secretly) cheering and hoping, because personhood did them a lot of harm in the 2008 and 2010 elections.

Read more...

GOP and Voting Strategy

Note: This is cross-posted from my blog, NoodleFood.

Wow, this essay -- It Is Infuriating That I Can't Vote For A Fiscal Conservative Without Also Supporting Religious Aggressives -- was a huge breath of fresh air for me. Here's a few quotes:

At some point, I actually would like to vote for a Presidential candidate who has the balls to really tackle our budget problem. Because, as a country, we really do have hard choices to make. And now is the time to have leaders who are actually willing to lead (read: make unpopular decisions), instead of spineless yes-men who quake at the thought of saying or doing things that most people don't want to hear.

And given that the folks who say they will take a hard line on those sorts of fiscal decisions tend to be Republicans, I assume that to vote for such a fiscal conservative, I would probably be voting for a Republican.

And I would would be fine with that.

Except for one thing...

Thanks to the radicalization of today's Republican party, voting for a Republican fiscal conservative would also mean supporting Republican Religious Aggressives who want to expand the scope of government to such an extent that the government will be telling me what I can and can't think and do on certain subjective moral and cultural issues--and enforcing this legally.

And that's a non-starter.

And:

In short, I support freedom.

The Republicans do not.

The Republicans support increasing the size and scope of government to such an extent that it strips away freedom and limits the choices Americans can make because some people believe these choices are "just wrong."

And that's a bummer.

Because I would like to support a true fiscal conservative at some point--our budget mess is a real problem.

But unless the Republican party returns to what it used to be, or a Democrat who is also a true fiscal conservative comes along, I fear that I am not going to be able to vote for one.

Because I just can't support what today's Republican Party supports:

Stripping away freedom and increasing the scope of government to the point where America won't be America anymore.

Hear, hear! (Please read the whole thing.)

In my view, the only way that the GOP will ever listen to the many, many Americans who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal is if those people stop reflexively voting for the GOP simply because the Democrats are marginally worse on some (but not all) key issues.

The GOP knows that evangelicals will sit home rather than vote for a candidate not to their liking; they know that they have to earn the vote of the religious right. As a result, the GOP has become increasingly unprincipled and compromising on every issue -- except its (utterly wrong) opposition to abortion and gay marriage.

In contrast, GOP politicians know that fiscally conservative and socially liberal voters will hold their nose and vote GOP just this once... and then again... and again... and again. Hence, GOP politicians don't even need to pander to those voters while campaigning, let alone actually satisfy them once in office.

The only way to crush the GOP's love affair with the religious right, in my view, is to punish the GOP at the polls by refusing to vote for their big-spending theocratic candidates. We must say, loud and clear, that we'll only vote for candidates who are genuinely committed to cutting spending, welfare programs, regulations, and more -- while not push any social conservative agenda either. Yes, that will entail some more pain from the Democrats -- perhaps very serious pain -- in the short term. Alas, I think that's the only way to turn around the GOP's ever-growing commitment to spending like mad while imposing biblical law.

I discussed these ideas about voting strategy in greater depth in Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio Show. (In fact, I wrote this post before Sunday's broadcast.) You can listen to that segment here:

• Duration: 38:30


• Download: MP3 Segment

Links and other details can be found on the web page for the question.

My basic points were:

(1) The Founders did not create a two-party system by design.

(2) Voting is the least significant political act you can do, albeit still worthwhile.

(3) Fiscal conservatives need to be willing to refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils if they want better candidates.

(4) A good candidate from a third party is often a worthwhile protest vote.

(5) I don't yet know how I'll vote, although I'm most likely to vote for Gary Johnson.

(6) Acrimony over voting is wrong, pointless, and destructive.

I'm not too concerned with how anyone votes in this presidential election. I'm definitely not demanding that people vote in some particular way. The process of demanding better candidates from the GOP needed to start long before now... and it can only really begin after R&R either win or lose.

Read more...

Two Questions on Philosophy in Action Sunday Radio

In Sunday morning's live broadcast of Philosophy in Action Radio, I'll answer two questions that might be of interest. The first question is about voting for third-party candidates:

Is it moral or practical to vote for third-party candidates? The Founders created a two-party political system. With features like geographic representation, first-past-the-post voting for Congress, and the Electoral College for voting for President, the Founders clearly wanted parties consisting of large umbrella groups of wide geographic and ideological interests. As a result, the United States has always had two and only two dominant political parties. Corrupt election laws, passed by these parties, now guarantee that except in rare instances (such as Jesse Ventura, of all people) only members of these two parties can be elected to office. Given these facts, what is the purpose of voting for a third party candidates? Unlike the two major umbrella parties, all third parties are composed of ideological kooks of many persuasions. Isn't a vote for a third party candidate thus immoral (for supporting kookdom) and impractical (since they can't win)? Wouldn't it be better to try to improve the two existing parties, or not vote at all?

The second question is about bigotry against religion:

Is criticism of and opposition to religion a form of bigotry? In its entry on bigotry, Wikipedia claims that a "bigot" is "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one who exhibits intolerance and animosity toward members of a group," and that "bigotry may be directed towards those of a differing sex or sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, nationality, region, language, religious or spiritual belief, political alignment, age, economic status or medical disability." I hear the charge of bigotry bandied about, often reflexively, particularly by theists when atheists criticize their faith-based beliefs as irrational. Is open criticism of and disrespect for religion a form of bigotry? Or is "bigotry" a loaded concept to be used by anyone whose belief system is critically challenged?

Interested? I hope so! Here's what you need to listen to the live broadcast:

• What: Philosophy in Action Q&A Radio: 26 August 2012


• Who: Dr. Diana Hsieh and Greg Perkins


• When: Sunday, 26 August 2012, 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET


• Where: Philosophy in Action's Live Studio

The full show will cover voting for third-party candidates, self-interest in parenting, bigotry against religion, intellectually inferior professors, and more. You can review all the questions for this episode here: Q&A Radio: 26 August 2012.

To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. If you attend the live show, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask me follow-up questions in the text chat.

If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the audio from the episode posted here: Q&A Radio: 26 August 2012.

Philosophy in Action Radio broadcasts every Sunday morning and Wednesday evening. For information on upcoming shows and more, visit the Episodes on Tap.

I hope that you join us on Sunday morning!

Read more...

Personhood USA Gets the Facts Wrong about Georgia Ballot Measure

Personhood USA is rather less than accurate in its latest newsletter. It begins:

Voters in Georgia turned out to support a Personhood amendment with a super majority of 66% earlier this month, proving once again that everyday Americans from across the country believe that the right to life extends to all human beings.

In fact, the measure did pass by 65.7%, but the ballot measure was limited to the GOP primary, not in any general election. Here's what LifeSiteNews reported:

A strong majority of voters participating in Georgia’s GOP primary yesterday supported a non-binding ballot question on whether to grant state constitutional recognition of personhood for the unborn child.

Sixty-six percent of voters in Tuesday’s GOP primary expressed support for amending the Constitution of Georgia in the future to grant the “paramount right to life” to all human beings from their earliest biological existence until natural death.

The amendment question won in 158 of 159 counties, garnering 593,250 votes of the 902,512 cast statewide, according to Georgia Right to Life (GRTL), which spearheaded the question. The group noted that, in most counties, support was between 71% to 78%.

Yes, that's a bad sign for the GOP, which will continue to isolate itself and lose general elections with "personhood" on its agenda.

Read more...

Personhood in Colorado for 2012

It looks like the religious right zealots of Colorado will have another "personhood" measure on the ballot in November. The Denver Post reports:

The Colorado Personhood Coalition Monday submitted more than 121,000 signatures to the secretary of state to get its anti-abortion measure on the November ballot.

The group, which claims 1,500 volunteers and the engagement of 500 churches in the cause, needs about 86,000 validated signatures to get the measure before voters again. This would be the group's third try since 2008 to amend the state Constitution.

That "personhood" measure will be joined on the ballot by a very good measure that would legalize marijuana, as well as a terrible (but lacking any teeth) measure on campaign finance. This 9 News story has the details.

Interestingly, the Denver Post reports that GOP candidate Joe Coors won't endorse "personhood":

This time around Joe Coors, now a Republican candidate for the 7th congressional district, will not endorse the personhood initiative, which would ban all abortions in the state, the campaign told the Post Wednesday.

"After its two failed attempts on the ballot, Coloradans have made their decision on this issue," campaign spokeswoman Michelle Yi said. "Joe respects the voters' decision and, for the next 90 days, will continue to focus on ideas to get our economy back on track by helping job creators start new businesses and expand their payrolls."

I hope that more GOP candidates do the same. Colorado voters have not looked kindly on candidates who endorse "personhood." If it wants to win, the GOP needs to focus on economic issues, not pushing an unpopular dogma of social conservatives.

Read more...

Personhood Ballot Signatures

Signatures turned in for Colorado anti-abortion measure:

The Colorado Personhood Coalition Monday submitted more than 121,000 signatures to the secretary of state to get its anti-abortion measure on the November ballot.

The group, which claims 1,500 volunteers and the engagement of 500 churches in the cause, needs about 86,000 validated signatures to get the measure before voters again. It would be its third attempt since 2008 to amend the state Constitution.

That's likely more than enough signatures to get "personhood" on the ballot in Colorado for 2012... unfortunately. Once again, Ari Armstrong and I plan to update our 2010 paper: The 'Personhood' Movement Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception.

Read more...

The Importance of a Candidate's Views on Abortion: Philosophy in Action Sunday Radio

On Sunday morning's live broadcast of Philosophy in Action Radio, I'll answer a question on the importance of a candidate's views on abortion that might be of interest. The question is:

How important are a political candidate's views on abortion? Why should we be worried about a political candidate's bad views on abortion if their views on other issues like economics are generally good? After all, as US President, Mitt Romney couldn't outlaw abortion even if he wanted to. But a good or bad President could have a tremendous good or bad effect on our economic liberties. Conversely, President Obama wants to keep abortion legal but that positive pales in significance to his terrible negative views on economics. Shouldn't a candidate's views on economics be more important at present than their views on abortion?

Interested? I hope so! Here's what you need to listen to the live broadcast:

• What: Philosophy in Action Q&A Radio Show


• Who: Dr. Diana Hsieh and Greg Perkins


• When: Sunday, 22 July 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET


• Where: www.PhilosophyInAction.com/live

The full show will cover ways to express love, the morality of exposing security flaws, the nature of happiness, the importance of a candidate's views on abortion, and more. You can review all the questions for this episode here: Q&A Radio: 22 July 2012.

If you attend the live show, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask me follow-up questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the audio recording of the whole episode, as well as individual questions, posted to the episode's archive page: Q&A Radio: 22 July 2012. From that page, you can post comments on the questions before or after the broadcast.

Philosophy in Action Radio broadcasts live every Wednesday evening and Sunday morning. Take a peek at the Episodes on Tap for the scoop on upcoming shows!

In the meantime, Connect with Us via social media, newsletter, RSS feeds, and more. Check out the Show Archives, where you can listen to any past episode or question. And visit the Question Queue to submit and vote on questions for upcoming episodes.

I hope that you'll join us on Sunday morning!

Read more...

North Carolina's Despicable Amendment

David Deerson writes an excellent blog post on North Carolina's Despicable Amendment -- a.k.a. Amendment 1. The amendment -- up for a vote today (May 8th) -- would declare that “marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.”

David writes:

The amendment isn’t only a strike against gay marriage but also civil unions, regardless of the gender composition of the partners. Depending on the courts interpretation of the language of the amendment, it could:

• invalidate domestic violence protections for all unmarried partners;


• undercut existing child custody and visitation rights that are designed to protect the best interests of children;


• prevent the state from giving committed couples rights to allow them to order their relationships, including threatening their


• ability to determine the disposition of their deceased partner’s remains;


• make medical decisions if their partner is incapacitated


• allow second-parent adoptions in order to ensure that both partners have a legal tie to, and financial responsibilities for, the


• children they are raising.


• invalidate trusts, wills, and end-of-life directives by one partner in favor of the other.

Apparently, the people who will be voting for this amendment don't even understand its legal implications. But based on recent polling numbers, it seems likely to pass by a wide margin. I'm hoping for an unexpected but stunning defeat.

Read more...

Rick Santorum on Pregnant Rape Victims

Rick Santorum says that pregnant rape victims should "accept the gift of human life" and "make the best out of a bad situation." And yes, that's what every advocate of "personhood for zygotes" must say.



As Ari and I said in The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties:

In [a] 2004 survey, around 1.5 percent of women who got an abortion cited rape or incest as the cause of the pregnancy. Forcing a woman to carry an unwanted fetus to term when the pregnancy was caused by a sexual assault victimizes her yet again. Even if she gives up the child for adoption, she must live with the ever-present physical reminder of her assault for the duration of her pregnancy. Moreover, the woman might feel a torturous conflict over the born child: she might desperately want to raise her own child, but abhor the thought of raising the child of her rapist.

That last point, I think, is particularly important.

Read more...

Rick Santorum on Free Speech

In this video, Rick Santorum answers a question on SOPA. He doesn't express an opinion about the bill, but he does explain his view that he regards all rights as limited and subject to regulation, including free speech rights:



Here are some highlights, but I recommend listening to the whole video:

My general feeling is that we have a free market and a free market should work. But like any freedom, there has to be regulation. We're not unlimited in any right, even rights that we have within our Constitution: they're not unlimited rights. There is, and can be, limitations on that. Freedom of speech, there are things that you can't say: you can't cry "fire" in a crowded theater. There are limitations to all freedom: there are no absolute rights. There are rights that have responsibilities that come with them. If you abuse those rights -- piracy -- if you abuse those rights, then you have a consequence of abusing that right. ...

I would make the case that ... there are limits to freedom on the internet. The internet is a powerful source for good. And, as we all know, it has been a powerful source for bad in this country. So the idea that we should just "hands-off" -- and it's a moral-free zone, it's a regulation free-zone, and that people should be able to do whatever they want -- I don't know of any other zone in America where that's the case. Why should the internet be different than everything else?

So I would say that responsible, well-[something], discussed regulation -- if there is abuse, taking someone's private property -- if there is abuse, as there is in pornography and a lot of other areas where we are destroying the moral fabric of our country -- to say, "well, it's just tough, let people to whatever they want -- let a 12 year old -- let them do whatever they want."

There are limitations that have to be put in place because your free speech rights can be incredibly harmful to someone else. Your desire to go a grab something that doesn't belong to you can be very harmful to someone else. ...

Rick Santorum views liberty as mere license to indulge in whims, including stealing from others. That's an utterly corrupt conception of rights. A person does not have the right to violate the rights of others! Yet on Santorum's view, protecting intellectual property from theft is on par with banning pornography to protect the moral fabric of society. They're both a matter of limiting rights to prevent harm to others.

Oy vey.

Read more...

Newt's Nutty Abortion Stance

Today two articles came out slamming Newt Gingrich for embracing the hard-line anti-abortion "personhood" movement.

Paul Hsieh wrote the first for Pajamas Media. He emphasizes the fact that Gingrich's proposals would ban the birth control pill and IUD. He writes, "If Gingrich (or any other 'personhood' supporter) wins the 2012 GOP nomination, the future legality of birth control pills and IUDs would immediately become a national political issue, to the detriment of the Republicans. Just as the 'personhood' issue tipped the swing state of Colorado in favor of the Democrats in 2010, it could also tip a few critical swing states in favor of Obama in 2012."

I wrote the other article for The Objective Standard. Like Paul, I discuss the strategic foolishness of Republicans embracing the "personhood" movement, referencing Ken Buck's loss of a U.S. Senate Seat. I also discuss Gingrich's comments regarding birth control.

One additional point I make is that Gingrich's proposals would subject women who get abortion to severe criminal penalties:

If, as Personhood USA asserts, a zygote is a person with the same right to life as a born infant or adult, then any action that intentionally kills a zygote, embryo, or fetus constitutes murder, as a representative of the organization emphasized during a November news conference. By the logic of the position and in accordance with existing murder statutes, abortion would be legally prosecuted as murder. Any doctor or husband who assisted in an abortion would be prosecuted as an accessory to murder. A Canadian anti-abortion group forthrightly argues that women who get abortions should face severe prison sentences. A Colorado supporter of Personhood USA explicitly calls for the death penalty for women who get abortions.

For a more detailed discussion of the issue, see the essay by Diana Hsieh and me, "The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties."

Originally published at Ari Armstrong's blog.

Read more...

The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties

Last week, Ari Armstrong's and my new paper on abortion rights -- The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties -- was published in the The Objective Standard. Happily, our article is available for free to everyone.

Here's the opening paragraph:

In recent years, antiabortion activists have stepped up their attacks on a woman's right to abortion and have achieved a series of victories in their efforts to outlaw the procedure. This increasing assault poses a major threat not only to women's right to abortion, but, more broadly, to individual rights as such. Rights form a logical unity, and to the extent that any are threatened, all are threatened. The antiabortionists' war on a woman's right to her body is ultimately a war on all our rights, including our rights to property, free trade, and freedom of speech. To demonstrate this, we will briefly survey the goals, methods, successes, and rationale of today's antiabortion movement; we will then turn to the reasons women seek abortions, to the nature of rights and the positive case for a woman's right to abortion, and finally to the reasons why any restriction on abortion rights necessarily clears the way for violations of other rights.

If you like the article, please share it with friends and fellow activists. Given that conservatives tend to be hostile to abortion rights -- or at least squishy about them -- we think that our article is one that desperately needs to be circulated in free-market and tea-party circles.

Again, you can read the whole article here: The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties.

Read more...