By Endorsing Horrific 'Personhood' Measure, Republicans Court Defeat

[From Ari Armstrong's blog:] The following article originally was published May 28, 2010, by Grand Junction's Free Press.

By endorsing horrific 'personhood' measure, Republicans court defeat

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

All we can figure is that Colorado Republicans have a political death wish. What else can explain candidates like Scott McInnis and Jane Norton falling all over themselves to endorse the wildly unpopular, absurdly drafted, and life-damaging "personhood" measure headed for the ballot this fall?

Amendment 62, a slightly redrafted version of 2008's Amendment 48, would, if passed and fully enforced, ban all abortions, even in cases of risks to the woman's health, rape, incest, and fetal deformity. It would outlaw the birth control pill, the IUD, "morning after" medications, common fertility treatments, and some types of medical research.

It would subject women with suspicious miscarriages to possible criminal prosecution. It would require doctors to sacrifice the health of a woman to the survival of a zygote or fetus, which would inevitably result in the death of some women. It would require women to carry pregnancies to term against their wishes, by government force. [See details.]

And the sponsors of this nightmarish police-state proposal have the audacity to call it "pro-life." We can think of no other measure more harmful to the lives of actual people ever to gain ballot approval.

The measure may do better than the 27 percent of votes it gained last time. In 2008, Republicans were dispirited; this year they are energized. Voters, sick of big-spender George W. "Bailout" Bush and the shenanigans of state Republicans, decided to give the Democrats a chance. The Democrats proceeded to further muck up everything from health care to car manufacturing to foreign policy.

Moreover, the new measure replaces 2008 language about "the moment of fertilization" with a confusing line about "the beginning of biological development." While the measure's sponsors declare that still means fertilization, no doubt some voters will imagine otherwise. (We might as well call the proposal the Lawyer Enrichment Act for all the court disputes it would generate.)

Given that 73 percent of Colorado voters opposed the measure last time, obviously leading Republican candidates must endorse it now. Apparently Republicans think they can win in this state by alienating not only most Hispanic voters but most women (and their concerned male friends) as well.

Republicans seem to have forgotten that, in 2008, John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin for her evangelical credentials hardly helped the ticket. Meanwhile, Republican Marilyn Musgrave lost her Congressional seat largely because of her obsession with faith-based politics, and Democrats successfully hammered various anti-choice Republicans running for state legislature.

Apparently this year Republicans in tough races fear the religious right in the primaries more than they fear mainstream voters in the general election. Such Republicans hope that people are so fed up with the Democrats that they'll momentarily forget about Republican craziness.

We already knew that Ken Buck (candidate for U.S. Senate) and Dan Maes (candidate for governor) endorsed "personhood." Your senior author heard McInnis, the frontrunner for governor, endorse the measure. The Daily Sentinel reported that Jane Norton, the leading Republican for U.S. Senate, also endorsed it. (Cinamon Watson, a spokesperson for Norton, confirmed the endorsement; see your younger author's report at http://tinyurl.com/62norton.)

We do not doubt that Maes and Buck are True Believers: they believe that God forbids abortion. (That is hardly the Christian consensus, and more importantly law should not be based on sectarian dogmas.) The endorsements of McInnis and Norton look remarkably like pandering to us. [See the update about Maes.]

Previously Norton called for abortion bans with possible exceptions for "rape, incest, and life of the mother," exceptions which at least in the first two cases clash with the "personhood" measure. For once we side with Colorado Right to Life and "question Jane Norton's sincerity on this issue."

Interestingly, a new survey from Public Policy Polling shows Senator Michael Bennet taking the lead for the first time. We wonder whether Bennet can sustain that lead by attacking Norton over "personhood." (The same outfit shows a tied governor's race.)

Scott McInnis's endorsement is more bizarre. As the Denver Post reported, back in 1998 McInnis was on the Advisory Board of Republicans for Choice. A letter to the Federal Election Commission shows McInnis's name on the group's letterhead. "Scott has no memory of that," according to his spokesperson.

True, McInnis also built an anti-choice voting record, earning a zero rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America, for voting for such incremental measures as a partial-birth abortion ban except to save a woman's life. Yet we are supposed to believe that, in twelve years, McInnis has evolved from a pro-choice Republican to endorsing a measure outlawing the birth control pill as well as all abortions.

Frankly, we don't know which prospect is more frightening: that McInnis is pandering to the religious right, or that he really supports Amendment 62.

It remains to be seen whether, this year, Colorado Republicans will get away with threatening to impose dangerous sectarian dogmas by government force. But, over the long term, freedom-loving Coloradans aren't going to stand for it.

Linn Armstrong is a local political activist and firearms instructor with the Grand Valley Training Club. His son, Ari, edits FreeColorado.com from the Denver area.

Read more...

Oklahoma Anti-Abortion Gestapo

Oklahoma legislators have gone hog-wild in an orgy of anti-abortion bill-writing this session. Eight -- EIGHT bills interfering with a woman's right to abortion passed, four of which were vetoed by Oklahoma Governor, Brad Henry. But Religious Right lawmakers, including anti-abortion Democrats, succeeded in overriding three of the four vetoes.

Restricting Abortion Any Way They Can

The vetoed bills attack abortion rights in wide-ranging ways.

One bill requires a woman seeking an abortion to have an ultrasound within an hour of the procedure and have its findings explained to her. Another requires women seeking abortion services and the abortion providers to fill out a lengthy questionnaire and have its findings reported statistically on a state website. Another would ban wrongful life lawsuits against doctors who withhold information that could cause a woman to seek an abortion. These three vetoed bills were overridden by the Legislature. Of the 4th veto, legislators will not attempt an override a bill that would restrict insurance coverage of abortions (but sponsors may resurrect that bill next year).

The Anti-Abortion Gestapo

One particularly forcible bill would require women to have an ultrasound within one hour of requesting an abortion and be compelled to listen to a detailed description of the fetus. Even women impregnated by rape/incest would be included!

How is this to be accomplished, I wonder: by strapping down women's arms, holding their eyes open with toothpicks and placing headphones on at full volume? Fortunately, this coercive law is on hold due to a legal challenge by The Center for Reproductive Rights.

Public Health Hogwash

I'd like to highlight another overridden bill that disguises itself as a public health measure. Using classic public health vernacular, Sen. Clark Jolley, the Senate sponsor of the bill, said the bill is meant to understand why women are choosing to end their pregnancies. Tony Lauinger, state chairman for Oklahomans for Life, said the measure attempts to get accurate information about abortions performed in the state: "We are very appreciative of the pro-life action taken by the Senate. It is often said abortion is safe, legal and rare. This law seeks to gauge the accuracy of that statement." Sen. Jolley adds "This is about gathering data so we can prevent future need for women to face this choice."

If Oklahoma lawmakers were really concerned about public health priorities of their state, they need look no further than their own State Health Department which was assigned the task of prioritizing and solving Oklahoma's biggest public health problems. Because Oklahoma ranks 49th in the U.S. in health rankings, there is plenty of work to do.

Oklahoma's biggest health problems are heart disease (top in the nation), smoking (ranked 36th in the nation), obesity (ranked 6th), and infant health (higher infant mortality rate than national average). Preventing unintended pregnancies is also a goal, but that can be best accomplished by preventing pregnancy (you know, birth control--ever heard of it?) Reducing abortions is not going to affect pregnancy rates. The Anti-Abortion Gestapo can just stop crying alligator tears of concern for women's health. Women's health and rights are not their real concern, otherwise they would be worried about the death and complication rates resulting from abortions made illegal by their lawmaking.

Wear Yourself Out With the Questionnaire from HB 3284

Check out the questionnaire and imagine if you would like the government requiring you to answer the following deeply personal questions:

Reasons seeking abortion (hidden down in #15 of questionnaire); date of abortion; county performed; age of mother; marital status; race; years of education; state/country of residence; number of previous pregnancies; number of live births; miscarriages; induced abortions; gestational age of fetus based on last menstrual period; specific method of abortion; infant status resulting from abortion; was CPR of fetus undertaken; how long did aborted fetus survive; use of anesthesia to mother and fetus--what type and how administered; disposal of fetal tissue; reasons seeking an abortion (would it dramatically change the life of mother, interfere with her education, interfere with job, has other children, cannot afford another child, is unmarried, is a student, can't afford child care, can't meet basic needs of life, is unemployed, can't leave job to care for baby, would need new place to live, poor spousal support, spouse unemployed, on welfare, doesn't want to be single mother, relationship problems, uncertain of relationship to father, doesn't want to marry father, not in a relationship, may break up with father of child, mother feels she's too immature, spouse is abusive, mother doesn't want others to know she's had sex or is pregnant, husband wants abortion, health of mother or fetus at risk, parents want abortion, emotional health of mother at risk, wants child of different sex, life of mother at risk, pregnancy due to rape, pregnancy due to incest, mother declined to give reason); method of payment; insurance; fees collected; time fee collected; MD specialty; ultrasound used during or before or after; was ultrasound vaginal, abdominal or both; name of person performing ultrasound; referring physician; statute info provided to mother; did mother get printed materials; was gestational age 20 weeks or more and if so, was mother given appropriate info on the statutes pertaining to that.

So this extremely nosy public health approach to restricting abortion is lot of diversion from the real public health problems of Oklahoma. It is instead a method of intimidating doctors and patients into foregoing abortion (and thereby raising the statistics of unintended pregnancies, contrary to their own official public health priorities).

The only relevant questions an abortion provider should ask a patient are: "do you understand the procedure and its risks, and do you consent?" Kind of like Lasik surgery to improve your vision. Why a woman seeks an abortion is no government's or religious do-gooder's god-dammed business. The decision begins and ends with her.

The anti-choice Gestapo in Oklahoma wants to eliminate the right to abortion because of religious beliefs. But in reality it is the woman who has full rights over her body, her pregnancy, her soul and her being; and these rights cannot be overridden by a fetus.

So the nosy-Ninnies of the Oklahoma Legislature and the anti-choice lobby should just be content with worrying about themselves--and maybe their waistlines and cholesterol levels.

Read more...

Maes Afflicted with GOP's Abortion Schizophrenia

[From Ari Armstrong's blog:] It is unfortunate for Dan Maes, who recently eked out a narrow victory in the Republican state assembly's vote for governor, that his last name rhymes with "ways," for the cries of "Both Ways Maes" have already begun. He simultaneously wants and opposes abortion bans, at the same time and in the same respect.

Recently I pointed out that many Republicans endorse hard-core abortion bans. For example, Rand Paul wants to ban abortion at the national level -- even in cases of rape and incest -- ban common forms of birth control, and ban medical research involving embryonic stem cells. (He also wants to legally force nutrition for those in permanently vegetative states.) In Colorado, every leading candidate for governor and U.S. Senate has endorsed Amendment 62, the "personhood" measure that would grant full legal rights to fertilized eggs. (For a detailed description of what the measure would entail, and why it is terrible, see the paper written by Diana Hsieh and me.)

And yet something odd is going on in the Republican Party. For at the Colorado assembly, where the most hard-core Republican activists gathered, 74 percent of participants declared "that pregnancy, abortion, and birth control are personal private matters not subject to government regulation or interference." Slightly more participants declared that fertilized eggs deserve legal protection and that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, prompting me to declare that Republicans are schizophrenic on the issue.

Maes is the latest Republican to fall victim to the affliction. In some (atypically useful) reporting from the Colorado Independent, Scot Kersgaard reveals Maes's (shall we say) modified stance on the issue.

Kersgaard relates Maes's interview with the Independent:

I am ardently pro-life, he said, but he added that "Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, and people tend to forget that. I would not try to undo that."

Yet he said he not only favors Amendment 62, the personhood amendment, but that he voted for a similar amendment when it was on the ballot two years ago and that he signed the petition to get it on the ballot this time. Still, he says the amendment is largely rhetorical and that he believes its passage would have no effect on the availability of legal abortions in Colorado.

"People are overestimating the personhood amendment. It simply defines life as beginning at conception. That's it. Who knows what the intent of it is? They are simply making a statement. That is all I see it as. Do they have another agenda? I don't know."

A cynic might note the interesting timing of Maes's newfound perspective on "personhood." Now that Maes is through with the religious right voters at the convention and must shift focus to the more-mainstream primary, he has softened his stance on abortion accordingly.

Yet Maes never has echoed the far-reaching stances of the religious right anti-abortion groups. In a survey from January, Maes clearly stated that he endorsed the "personhood" measure. Yet, when asked about birth control "that may prevent a fertilized egg or zygote from implanting in the uterus," Maes answered, "I support the laws as they stand." Yet, as I have noted, if fully enforced the "personhood" measure indeed would ban common forms of birth control, including the pill. Maes simply dodged other questions pertaining to abortion.

What are we to make of Maes's statment that Amendment 62 "simply defines life as beginning at conception?" Clearly his statement is false. The measure would grant to fertilized eggs rights of safety, property, and due process. The measure says nothing about when life begins. (Technically, life precedes conception, because both the egg and sperm are alive.) Instead, the measure defines that personhood begins with conception.

Maes misspoke, then, for one of two reasons. Either he signed the petition for the measure without actually reading it -- a sign of gross irresponsibility -- or he is simply lying about what he knows the measure says. Offhand I do not know which option the less comforting.

Regarding Maes's comment that Amendment 62 is "simply making a statement," I wonder how many bills Maes intends to sign, should he be elected governor, based on what he thinks the "statement" of a bill is, rather than based on the actual language, meaning, and enforcement of a bill. Is Maes ignoring the horrific consequences of Amendment 62 simply because he wants to make a "statement?" That in itself makes an important statement about Maes's approach to legislation.

Yet the fact that Maes performed so well at the convention says something both about his skills as a campaigner and the self-inflicted wounds his major competitor, Scott McInnis, suffers. Initially I wrote off Maes, yet he has proven himself in political battle. And, most of the time, Maes sounds like a reasonable and personable candidate.

Sometimes I even like Maes. Kersgaard reported: "He said the root of tea party unhappiness with the state of the country is that 'people just feel that Washington is taking away their personal freedoms. They just want to be left alone.'"

My sense is that the "Dr. Liberty" side of Maes is stronger than the "Mr. Police State." But such ideological schizophrenia is hardly comforting, whether in a candidate or in a party at large.

Read more...

Rand Paul Wants Total Abortion Bans

[From Ari Armstrong's blog:] Rand Paul, son of Congressman Ron Paul, recently made news when, after winning the Kentucky GOP primary for U.S. Senate, he declared that private discrimination should be legal on the basis of property rights and free association.

Yet Paul believes the government should control women's bodies by preventing them from obtaining abortions and common forms of birth control. He thinks a store owner has the right to keep out black patrons, but he does not think a woman has the right to control her own reproductive functions. He doesn't think government should interfere to stop private racism, but he thinks government should throw women and their doctors in prison for facilitating abortions.

The logical conclusion of abortion bans is that government agents should forcibly restrain women to prevent them from getting abortions. After all, if abortion is murder, as advocates of abortion bans routinely claim, then driving down the street to obtain an abortion is morally and legally equivalent to driving down the street with a loaded shotgun to blow your neighbor's head off. Police have every right to arrest and forcibly restrain threatening individuals. If abortion is murder, then a woman who declares her intent to get an abortion has threatened murder and must be strapped down if necessary to ensure delivery.

But a fertilized egg is not a person. A fertilized egg does not properly have the legal rights of a born infant. Abortion is not murder. Women have every right to take birth control drugs or obtain an abortion. Abortion bans place a woman's body under the control of the government and threaten to unleash a heavy-handed police state. (For a more complete case against abortion bans, see the paper written by Diana Hsieh and me.)

As a would-be abortion banner, Paul is the enemy of liberty, property rights, and free association.

Consider what Paul writes on his web page:

I am 100% pro life. I believe abortion is taking the life of an innocent human being.

I believe life begins at conception and it is the duty of our government to protect this life.

I will always vote for any and all legislation that would end abortion or lead us in the direction of ending abortion.
I believe in a Human Life Amendment and a Life at Conception Act as federal solutions to the abortion issue. I also believe that while we are working toward this goal, there are many other things we can accomplish in the near term. ...

In addition, I believe we may be able to save millions of lives in the near future by allowing states to pass their own anti-abortion laws. If states were able to do so, I sincerely believe many -- including Kentucky -- would do so tomorrow, saving hundreds of thousands of lives.

Before 1973, abortion was illegal in most states. Since Roe v. Wade, over 50 million children have died in abortion procedures.

I would strongly support legislation restricting federal courts from hearing cases like Roe v. Wade. Such legislation would only require a majority vote, making it more likely to pass than a pro-life constitutional amendment.

I would support legislation, a Sanctity of Life Amendment, establishing the principle that life begins at conception. This legislation would define life at conception in law, as a scientific statement.

As your Senator, there are many ways I can help end abortion. I will fight for each and every one of them.

Paul helpfully includes links to two Kentucky surveys on abortion and related matters.

In response to a survey from the Kentucky Right to Life Association Political Action Committee, Paul supported the following positions:

* A nation abortion ban.

* Abortion bans even in cases of rape and incest.

* Possible bans on "chemical abortions, such as RU-486, the abortion pill, and other drugs known to prevent the newly created human being from attaching to his/her mother's womb (implantation)." Notably, the birth control pill and the IUD can prevent implantation. (The survey asks whether the responder is "morally and/or medically opposed to chemical abortions," which does not necessarily imply support for outright bans.)

* Bans on the medical use of embryonic stem cells.

* Legally required "nutrition and hydration" for "cognitively disabled people, like Terri Schiavo." The survey dishonestly conflates the condition of Schiavo, who was in a vegetative state for many years, with any sort of "disability."

In response to the Northern Kentucky Right to Life 2010 Election Candidate Questionnaire, Paul supported the following positions:

* A national abortion ban.

* Criminal penalties for anyone who facilitates an abortion, except "to prevent the death of the mother who is suffering from a physical pathology." (No exception is made for abortions that would merely protect the health of the woman.)

* Bans on the medical use of embryonic stem cells.

* Bans on the "withdrawal from an infant, incompetent, or comatose person of food and water," "except in cases where death is imminent and the patient cannot assimilate food or water." As with the last survey, this one dishonestly conflates people with slight medical conditions with the medically brain-dead.

In light of Paul's views on abortion, reproduction, and end-of-life decisions, nobody should be asking whether Paul advocates too much liberty.

Read more...

Resolved: Republicans Are Schizophrenic on Abortion

[From Ari Armtrong's blog:] As I recently noted, Republican U.S. Senate candidate Jane Norton has endorsed the "personhood" ballot measure to grant full legal rights to fertilized eggs. Every other leading Republican candidate for U.S. Senate and governor has done the same.

So Colorado Republicans are over-the-top crazy for abortion bans, right? Perhaps.

At the recent state convention, Republicans passed 59 resolutions ranging from a condemnation of "net neutrality" to a recommendation to vote against retention of four state Supreme Court justices. Most of the resolutions passed with near-unanimity. The only resolutions to garner double-digit opposition pertain to the line-item veto, Congressional term limits, and abortion and reproductive matters.

Particularly odd is the apparently contradictory vote on abortion, as illustrated by the following results:

30. It is resolved by Colorado Republicans that life begins at conception and is deserving of legal protection from conception until natural death.
Total Votes 3008
YES 2378 79.06%
NO 630 20.94%

31. It is resolved that Colorado Republicans support overturning Roe v. Wade.
Total Votes 2991
YES 2340 78.23%
NO 651 21.77%

32. It is resolved by Colorado Republicans that pregnancy, abortion, and birth control are personal private matters not subject to government regulation or interference.
Total Votes 2984
YES 2210 74.06%
NO 774 25.94%

It is interesting to note that, at the convention, where the most hard-core Republican activists gathered, one in five strongly rejected abortion-ban language.

But what explains the clash between resolutions 30 and 32 (assuming the results were correctly reported)? How can so many Republicans simultaneously advocate legal rights for fertilized eggs and declare "that pregnancy, abortion, and birth control are personal private matters not subject to government regulation or interference?"

One possible explanation is that most of those voting rushed through the measures and had no idea what they were voting to support. But I'd like to think the participants took the exercise a little more seriously than that.

Why might somebody intentionally vote "yes" on both 30 and 32? First notice the ambiguities of Resolution 30. The fact that, in some sense, "life begins at conception," says nothing about whether that life is a person with full legal rights. (Technically, life precedes conception, in that both the egg and the sperm are alive.) Moreover, the nature of the "legal protection" is not specified. I agree that a woman's embryo or fetus deserves legal protection as an extension of the rights of the woman; it is properly illegal to harm a fetus against the wishes of the woman carrying it.

I think a lot of Republicans dislike irresponsible sex that results in unwanted pregnancies. (Who doesn't dislike that?) Many Republicans, I believe, allow themselves to blur the line between disapproval of irresponsible behavior resulting in abortion and legal prohibitions of abortion. Such Republicans think it's sad that some women get abortions (and it is), and they don't bother to think carefully about the implications of the bans advocated by the religious right. (For a detailed account of those implications, see the paper by Diana Hsieh and me.)

Do most Republicans really want to send women, their doctors, and their complicit spouses to prison for facilitating abortions? Do most Republicans really want to outlaw the birth control pill and the IUD because those things might cause the destruction of a fertilized egg? Do most Republicans really want to outlaw common fertility treatments that result in the destruction of fertilized eggs? Do most Republicans really want to empower police and prosecutors to go after women who miscarry under suspicious circumstances? Do most Republicans really want to put decisions about a woman's health in the hands of politicians, bureaucrats, and prosecutors?

I don't think so.

What, then, explains the fact that Republican candidates are falling all over themselves to endorse the "personhood" measure, Amendment 62?

Apparently those candidates think their endorsements will gain religious right votes in the primaries without costing them much support among Republicans who dislike the measure.

Consider a May 24 announcement from Jane Norton's campaign:

Today, Jane Norton, candidate for U.S. Senate, announced two major conservative endorsements. The American Conservative Union PAC (ACU PAC) and the Family Research Council Action PAC (FRC Action PAC) recognized Norton’s conservative credentials and endorsed her bid for the U.S. Senate. ...

“Jane Norton has been a true friend of the family in Colorado and will continue to do so when elected to the Senate. We need Senators who will fight to defend the family against the radicalism of the Left in the U.S. Senate, and who won’t be a rubber stamp for the President’s extreme agenda. We are confident Ms. Norton will serve with distinction,” said Tony Perkins, chairman of FRC Action PAC.

“Jane has been a leader in the fight to protect the unborn, and has worked to keep taxpayer dollars from funding abortion. As the executive director of the Public Health Department in Colorado, Jane was instrumental in de-funding Planned Parenthood in her state. She has been a true champion for faith, family and freedom,” added Perkins.

“Her years of experience as a leader for pro-family causes in Colorado will serve Ms. Norton well in the Senate. FRC Action PAC believes that Jane Norton will be a true advocate for the issues that best uphold and strengthen families. We are proud to support her candidacy,” concluded Perkins.

Earlier this year, Norton also won the endorsement of the Susan B. Anthony List, a conservative, pro-life organization.

Norton has also sought, and received, the support of Sarah Palin, known for her anti-abortion sentiments.

Yet Republicans who pander to the religious right or tolerate its horrific, police-state proposals are fools. Such Republicans wistfully hope that Amendment 62 doesn't really mean what its sponsors say it means, or that it will never really be enforced. They play a dangerous game.

Read more...

Did Jane Norton Endorse Amendment 62? Yes!

[From Ari Armstrong's blog:] UPDATE: Today [May 20] at 1:17 p.m., I received the following conclusive email from Cinamon Watson: "Jane supports the personhood amendment." I thank Watson and Norton's office for this forthright and definitive answer to my question. Of course, that does not explain how Norton's previously expressed views about exceptions in cases of rape and incest fit in with her endorsement of Amendment 62. What follows was written earlier today and provides the background of the story.

Okay, John Tomasic, now you may legitimately complain that Jane Norton's office is not responsive to my questions.

Does Jane Norton endorse the "personhood" measure, Amendment 62 on this year's state ballot?

It is a simple yes or no question, a question that Norton has so far refused to answer.

For those unfamiliar with the story, Norton is the presumed Republican frontrunner for U.S. Senate. Amendment 62 is the measure that would grant fertilized eggs full legal rights; I criticized it in February in a first and second article. I also coauthored a lengthy criticism of the measure in its 2008 form.

I already knew that Ken Buck and Dan Maes, underdog candidates for U.S. Senate and governor, respectively, endorsed personhood. They seem to really believe it's a good idea, and they have nothing to lose and religious right votes to pick up. But, given 73 percent of voters trounced the 2008 version of the measure, I was surprised to read that Norton and Scott McInnis, the frontrunners in the races, had also endorsed "personhood."

I first read the claim about the endorsements of Norton and McInnis on May 10 at ColoradoPols.com. Even though Colorado Pols cited a Grand Junction Daily Sentinel article about the endorsements, I did not see enough evidence to convince me at that time. In my Twitter post linking to that article, I stated, "I have not seen evidence of these alleged endorsements."

On May 11, the Colorado Independent, also citing the Sentinel, stated, "This year, the entire slate of Republican candidates for governor and the U.S. Senate are supporting the ['personhood'] amendment."

My dad Linn heard McInnis endorse the measure in person. So McInnis's endorsement is not in question. But, until today, I still did not have a good sense of whether Norton had endorsed it.

Here is what the May 10 Sentinel article by Charles Ashby states:

The last time the personhood amendment made the Colorado ballot in 2008, a number of anti-abortion Republican leaders either distanced themselves from it or outright opposed the idea because they said it went too far.

None of that seems to be the case with the 2010 version of the measure, political observers say.

As a result, all of the top-named GOP candidates for governor and the U.S. Senate have publicly supported the ballot question that would declare that life begins at conception. ...

[W[hile [Gualberto] Garcia Jones [director of Personhood Colorado] disagreed with arguments against the 2008 ballot question now just as much as he did then, he was surprised to learn it's winning support among such mainstream political candidates as Jane Norton and Ken Buck, who are running for U.S. Senate, and Dan Maes and Scott McInnis, who announced his support for the idea at a Western Colorado Conservative Alliance debate last week.

The article offers a particular event where McInnis endorsed the measure, but it offers no such detail about Norton. So I remained curious.

I called Cinamon Watson, a spokesperson for Norton, on May 17. Watson confirmed she was aware of the Sentinel story. I asked her whether it was true or false that Norton had endorsed "personhood." Watson said she would send me the answer via email.

By yesterday (May 19), I still had not heard back, so I called Watson again. "I will get it to you today," she said. I left her a voice mail near the end of the day. Today, after trying to reach Watson by her cell phone and at Norton's office, I finally received an email. Drum roll please...

Sorry this did not get to you yesterday:

"Jane believes that life begins at conception."

I had to wait three days for that?

The perceptive reader may notice that Watson did not, in fact, answer my question.

Thankfully, the good Mr. Ashby was more helpful. Late last night I sent Ashby an email asking him about the Norton endorsement.

Ashby referred me to Norton's web site:

The U. S. Constitution does not specifically speak about a right to an abortion. For decades, this important issue was left to the states to decide. In 1973, the U. S. Supreme Court, in the case of Roe v. Wade, ruled that the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution included a right to privacy which, in turn, included a right to an abortion. While I believe this decision was wrongly decided and should be overturned, it is unfortunately the law of the land today. I would support a Constitutional Amendment to protect unborn human life and will strive to promote a culture of life where all life (including the elderly, children, disabled, ill, and the unborn) is valued and protected. While I believe there may be certain limited circumstances - rape, incest, and life of the mother - when exceptions are needed, I oppose abortion because I believe human life begins at conception. I will oppose all federal funding of abortion. I support the appointment of judges to federal courts, including the Supreme Court, who will strictly construe the U. S. Constitution and not manufacture new rights or remedies not specifically provided for by our Founding Fathers in the Constitution.

By my reading, that statement does not constitute an endorsement of Amendment 62. I think the "Constitutional Amendment" to which Norton refers likely is an unspecified federal measure. Further, Norton's exceptions for rape and incest clearly contradict the impact of Amendment 62, as Colorado Right to Life recognizes: "Republican Jane Norton has supported 'abortion exceptions' in the past (i.e. for rape & incest, which is from our perspective 'pro-abortion with exceptions')."

So what I think happened is that Ashby unintentionally misinterpreted the intended meaning of Norton's web page as the support for his claim that Norton endorsed "personhood." [Update: Ashby continues to think that his original reading of Norton's web page was the correct one. Regardless of whether Norton intended to endorse Amendment 62 on her web page, obviously now her endorsement of it is entirely clear.]

Ashby also unintentionally put Norton in a tight corner just before the state assembly, which is this Saturday.

Apparently Norton's strategy was to remain silent on Amendment 62 and respond with vague generalities in the hopes of appeasing both sides. Ashby's report upset the fence on which Norton was perched and made the world believe she had endorsed "personhood." The last thing Norton wants to do is take a definitive stand on the issue. If she now declares she does not, after all, endorse the measure, that will infuriate the religious right, which wields significant power in the GOP primaries. If she affirms that she does endorse it, that will open her up to hard-hitting attacks in the general election.

And so she continues to dodge the question.

At least Buck has the courage of his convictions on this score, though he is, by my lights, dead wrong.

I will send Watson the link to this article. If Norton sends me a more clarifying response, I will update this page accordingly. [Please see the update at the top of this article, which shows that Norton definitively endorses "personhood."]

This Norton conundrum does illustrate nicely the problems that continue to plague the Republican Party.

Read more...

Chickens Come Home to Roost

Abortion Foes Capitalize on Health Law They Fought:

Abortion opponents fought passage of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul to the bitter end, and now that it's the law, they're using it to limit coverage by private insurers.

An obscure part of the law allows states to restrict abortion coverage by private plans operating in new insurance markets. Capitalizing on that language, abortion foes have succeeded in passing bans that, in some cases, go beyond federal statutes.

"We don't consider elective abortion to be health care, so we don't think it's a bad thing for fewer private insurance companies to cover it," said Mary Harned, attorney for Americans United for Life, a national organization that wrote a model law for the states.

Abortion rights supporters are dismayed.

Most of those abortion right supporters have only themselves to blame. They pushed hard for ObamaCare, using all kinds of tricks to overcome widespread public opposition. They could not have been honestly ignorant of the threat to abortion rights in ObamaCare, not given the contentious debates about it. Nor could they have been unaware that granting government unprecedented control over medicine would grant that same government unprecedented control over access to abortion too. And -- surprise, surprise -- governments are not always composed of staunch supporters of abortion rights.

Sadly, we told you so. Ari Armstrong wrote about this very problem in this blog post. My husband, writing for Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM) warned about abortion becoming a political football in this op-ed. As he says:

Government-controlled health insurance will mean politically-controlled medicine -- not only with respect to abortion but for health services in general. ObamaCare will turn medicine into a game of permanent political football, where the politically favored perpetually pound ordinary Americans without special "pull." Until we replace ObamaCare with free-market reforms, Americans had better get used to being the permanent tackling dummies for special-interest groups.

The chickens are coming home to roost. Abortion rights can only be respected when the government recognizes and protects all rights, particularly the rights of property and contract found only in free markets.

Remember: Christian fundamentalists will be more than happy to build their theocratic dictatorship on the socialist/fascist foundations laid by the progressives.

(H/T: Sascha.)

Read more...

American Academy of Pediatrics Gives in to Ritual Torture: My Activism

Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is an ages-old religious-tribal practice in parts of Asia, Africa and the Middle East in which the genitalia of young girls is butchered in a ritualized ceremony for the cultural purposes of "maintaining a girl's virtue" and enhancing marriageability. The practice is in fact the most egregious form of institutionalized and culturally-sanctioned sexual abuse of females existing today.

In a shocking acquiescence to the "cultural sensitivity" of immigrants from countries where FMG is routinely practiced, The American Academy of Pediatrics has revised its policy, "Ritual Genital Cutting of Female Minors", adding the suggestion that American doctors be given permission to perform a ceremonial "nick" on girls from these cultures if it would keep their families from sending them overseas for the full procedure.

This policy is full of contradictions, hypocrisy, rationalizations, and minimization of the savagery of FGM. On the one hand, the AAP stands opposed to the practice, yet in another sentence states:

These physicians emphasize the significance of a ceremonial ritual in the initiation of the girl or adolescent as a community member and advocate only pricking or incising the clitoral skin as sufficient to satisfy cultural requirements. This is no more of an alteration than ear piercing.

You have got to be kidding?! Ear-piercing is a benign cosmetic enhancement practiced world-wide voluntarily by women, men, and children alike. Female Genital Mutilation is sexual torture performed for the cultural purpose of dehumanizing and controlling females in the culture.

In another contradiction, the policy cites evidence that strict condemnation of the practice in Scandinavia actually eliminated it among the Somali immigrant population. But then the policy makes mere suppositions that giving in to what I call "little bit of sexual abuse" by a physician-performed "nick" might help ameliorate FGM.

Currently, offering a "ritual nick" is prohibited by US federal law. And a new law, "The Girls Protection Act," is being introduced in Congress by Joseph Crowley (D-NY) and Mary Bono Mack (R-CA). The summary statement of this bills is as follows:

Girls Protection Act of 2010 (H.R. 5137) - Amends the federal criminal code to impose a fine or five-year prison term, or both, on any U.S. citizen or alien admitted for permanent residence who knowingly transports in foreign commerce a girl under the age of 18 for the purposes of female genital mutilation.

I have written the following letter to the American Academy of Pediatrics voicing my opposition to its policy. I have also written the American Nurses Association and will be contacting other health provider groups as well as supporting House Bill 5137 (long time since I've supported anything done in Washington).

Here is my letter. I encourage readers to advocate in their own way against this blatant and evil encroachment of Multiculturalism at the expense of individual rights.

Dear American Academy of Pediatrics,

Your revised policy, "Ritual Genital Cutting of Female Minors," is nothing more than a tacit endorsement of a barbaric social custom.

You cannot in one sentence denounce the practice, yet in another advocate a compromising "nick" without committing utter hypocrisy. You make nothing more than guesses about purported advantages of a "ritual nick," yet contradict yourself by citing evidence to the opposite that strictly prohibiting it can end the practice.

This compromise policy crosses a dangerous line: your policy in fact legitimates female genital mutilation--the widespread, culturally-sanctioned ritualized form of extreme sexual abuse of females. By offering the daughter of immigrants a "ritual nick"-- in other words "mini sexual abuse"---rationalizing that her parents won't take her overseas for more drastic mutilating torture, is the most spineless capitulation to multiculturalism that I've ever heard of.

Your preference for the minimizing term, "cutting," in place of the accurately descriptive term, "mutilation," in no way obliterates the facts of reality: the cultures where this practice occurs butcher their daughters' genitalia to dehumanize her sexuality, autonomy, individual rights, equality before the law, and the very integrity of her personhood.

Take a good look at your drawings of the four types of female genital mutilation and imagine the excruciating pain a married virgin must undergo when her husband rams his penis into a very small opening that has been sewn shut by build up of scar tissue. Would you want that for yourselves, you female physicians? For your own daughters? Your own patients?!

The following is the stand that the AAP and all other medical and nursing societies must take: female genital mutilation in any form whatsoever--including a "ritual nick"--is to be unequivocally, unambiguously and explicitly denounced. If a family intends to or has taken a girl overseas for the procedure, they should be reported to the legal authorities where child abuse is reported. Their parents should be reported to the police and department of immigration, and deported from this country.

We cannot compromise on fundamental principles of individual rights--anywhere, anytime, for any expedient reason. They are absolute.

Female genital mutilation must end in our lifetime. We must stand up to these cultures with the attitude, "what you are doing to your daughters is immoral, wrong, and will not in anyway be tolerated here in the land of the free." As care providers we can educate immigrant parents with a culturally-sensitive approach, but the principle itself is inviolable.

If I ever encounter a patient with a ritual nick performed here in this country, I myself will report the family to social services and immigration authorities, and I will report the physician to his or her Board of Medical Examiners and inform the media.

Please, I beg you, seriously reconsider revising again your policy on "Ritual Genital Cutting of Female Minors," and live up to your sacred oath as healers of the most vulnerable in society.

Sincerely,
Gina M. Liggett, RN, MPH
Denver, CO

Read more...

Muhammad, or His Imposter

In honor of Draw Muhammad Day, I present this picture of Muhammad... or an impostor. At this point, I'm just not sure.



I traced the image from this Islamic illustration found in the Muhammad Image Archive.

You can find more drawings of Muhammad under the religion label on the blog of The Objective Standard.

I strongly encourage you to post your own drawing of Muhammad. Please, stand up for freedom of speech!

Read more...

Time to Draw Mohammed

[From Ari Armstrong's blog:] "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" is May 20. I have already published my entry and explained my reasons for participating. I have also explained why critics of the campaign are full of hot air.

I am pleased that other prominent organizations also are promoting the campaign. Michael Moynihan is leading the charge at Reason, while Craig Biddle of The Objective Standard is also publishing drawings.

And yet some critics remain miffed about the effort.

Eboo Patel worries that college students who chalked images of Mohammed needlessly offended Muslim students who don't support violence. Patel writes, "Muslim Students Associations (MSA) on all three campuses [Northwestern, Illinois and Wisconsin] said they believed in free speech and were opposed to fringe groups who threaten violence, too."

Patel argues that attacking a "sacred cow" is not a good way to defend free speech. For example, making fun of a sick grandmother or a cancer patient, or using the "N" word, would also attack a sacred cow, but doing so obviously would be wrong.

Further, argues Patel, drawing Mohammed "intentionally and effectively marginalize a community" and hurts the Muslim students.

Shahed Amanullah argues that the death threats made against the South Park creators (who used images evoking Mohammed) are not representative of the Muslim community. With the "Everybody Draw Mohammed" campaign, "these Muslim-Americans are being subject to mass insult." Amanullah likens drawing Mohammed to drawing "vile stereotypes of blacks."

The arguments of Patel and Amanullah are entirely bogus.

The first critical point is that, while most Muslims (especially in America) do not make death threats or try to murder people for drawing Mohammed, a significant number of Muslims do exactly that. Let us review, shall we?

* Salman Rushdie's novel The Satanic Versus was met with Islamist rioting, death threats, and a fatwa by Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

* The Danish cartoons of Mohammed also were met with widespread Islamist rioting, death threats, and acts of violence.

* Violent Islamists threatened to murder the creators of South Park.

* A violent Islamist planted a bomb in New York City, perhaps partly in response to South Park.

* A violent Islamist recently tried to burn down the house of Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilks.

* A violent Islamist recently broke into the home of Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard.

* A violent Islamist recently attacked Vilks at a university lecture for daring to show a controversial film. (See also the AP's account.)

* Violent Islamists have threatened to murder an organizer of the "Everybody Draw Mohammed" campaign.

Claims that the threats like those against the South Park creators are totally atypical and just the result of a couple of New York nut jobs are, put simply, lies. A frighteningly large portion of the Muslim community threatens, condones, or openly practices violence.

Let the majority of peaceful Muslims take a stand, denounce violence and threats of violence, denounce terrorist organizations, and strongly advocate individual rights and freedom of speech.

Are Muslim students at American universities all peace and light? Then let them openly and loudly condemn the Muslim student at the University of California, San Diego, who sympathized with the Nazis and Islamist terrorist organizations and called for the extermination of the Jews.

Moving on to tangential matters, I have already explained why drawing Mohammed is not like expressing racism or making fun of a sick grandmother or a cancer patient. Racism is inherently evil. Making fun of sick people is inherently wrong. But there is nothing inherently wrong about drawing Mohammed, the fact that some people take irrational offense to it notwithstanding.

Indeed, there is great moral virtue in drawing Mohammed in the current climate, for doing so offers some protection and moral support for those threatened by violence.

Moreover, religious beliefs are inherently ideological. One's race or illness is not derived from ideology. The primary purpose of freedom of expression is to protect ideological discussions. Do Muslims ever criticize other religions? Obviously. Likewise, "infidels" and Muslims alike properly have every right to criticize Islam, just as I have the right to criticize socialism, Christianity, etc. Drawing Mohammed can be a way to express views about that figure and the religion he developed. Muslims who condemn such drawings essentially are claiming that their ideology uniquely may not be criticized.

Contrary to Patel's claims, drawing Mohammed does not marginalize Muslims, but instead treats Muslims exactly the way that members of every other religion in America are treated. For example, South Park has relentlessly mocked Christianity. What Patel actually is demanding is special treatment of Muslims. But I refuse to marginalize Muslims by failing to subject them to the same level of criticism to which I subject Christians, socialists, and every other group with which I disagree.

What of the claims that drawing Mohammed hurts and insults Muslims? Well, what of them? If people are irrationally offended by some drawing, that's their problem.

Perhaps Muslims should work on expressing less outrage about drawings of Mohammed, and more outrage against Islamist violence and terrorism, Islamist abuses of women, Islamist mutilation of little girls, Islamist murders of homosexuals, Islamist censorship of speech and art, and Islamist oppression of Muslim peoples.

Read more...

A Nick of Barbarism

Regarding the news that the American Academy of Pediatrics suggests that doctors perform a ritual cut to the genitals of young girls to prevent them from being shipped overseas for full circumcision, Mark Steyn writes:

Last week, the American Association of Pediatricians noted that certain, ahem, "immigrant communities" were shipping their daughters overseas to undergo "female genital mutilation." So, in a spirit of multicultural compromise, they decided to amend their previous opposition to the practice: They're not (for the moment) advocating full-scale clitoridectomies, but they are suggesting federal and state laws be changed to permit them to give a "ritual nick" to young girls.

A few years back, I thought even fainthearted Western liberals might draw the line at "FGM." After all, it's a key pillar of institutional misogyny in Islam: Its entire purpose is to deny women sexual pleasure.

True, many of us hapless Western men find we deny women sexual pleasure without even trying, but we don't demand genital mutilation to guarantee it. On such slender distinctions does civilization rest.

Der Spiegel, an impeccably liberal magazine, summed up the remorseless Islamization of Europe in a recent headline: "How Much Allah Can The Old Continent Bear?" Well, what's wrong with a little Allah-lite? The AAP thinks you can hop on the Sharia express and only ride a couple of stops. In such ostensibly minor concessions, the "ritual nick" we're performing is on ourselves. Further cuts will follow.

(Via Amy Alkon.)

Steyn is right: this compromise can only lead to further accommodations of this barbaric practice. The problem is that the "ritual nick," even if innocuous in and of itself, grants the barbaric premise that Muslim parents have a right to mutilate their daughters in accordance with the dictates of Islam. Ultimately, the result of accepting that principle will be more female circumcisions, not fewer.

The danger of this attempted compromise reminds me of Ayn Rand's many sharp comments on the wrong of compromising one's principles and appeasing evil. Here's a taste:

It is only in regard to concretes or particulars, implementing a mutually accepted basic principle, that one may compromise. For instance, one may bargain with a buyer over the price one wants to receive for one's product, and agree on a sum somewhere between one's demand and his offer. The mutually accepted basic principle, in such case, is the principle of trade, namely: that the buyer must pay the seller for his product. But if one wanted to be paid and the alleged buyer wanted to obtain one's product for nothing, no compromise, agreement or discussion would be possible, only the total surrender of one or the other.

There can be no compromise between a property owner and a burglar; offering the burglar a single teaspoon of one's silverware would not be a compromise, but a total surrender--the recognition of his right to one's property. ("Doesn't Life Require Compromise?" in The Virtue of Selfishness)

And:

Do not confuse appeasement with tactfulness or generosity. Appeasement is not consideration for the feelings of others, it is consideration for and compliance with the unjust, irrational and evil feelings of others. It is a policy of exempting the emotions of others from moral judgment, and of willingness to sacrifice innocent, virtuous victims to the evil malice of such emotions. ("The Age of Envy" in Return of the Primitive)

And:

The three rules listed below are by no means exhaustive; they are merely the first leads to the understanding of a vast subject.

1. In any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same basic principles, it is the more consistent one who wins.

2. In any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins.

3. When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side; when they are not clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side. ("The Anatomy of Compromise" in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal)

American Academy of Pediatrics has given the woman-hating Muslim fanatics a major victory... and I'm sure those Muslim fanatics know it.

Read more...

The Soft-Spoken Genocidal Muslim at UCSD

This video -- particularly the last few seconds -- contains the most chilling exchange I've ever watched. It's David Horowitz drawing out a soft-spoken female student from UCSD... who also happens to be a Jew-hating, Hitler-admiring, lustfully genocidal Muslim.



She ought to be expelled from the university, as a threat to safety. No professor should be willing to have her in class, nor should any student be willing to sit in the same room as her.

If she's not a citizen, she ought to be expelled from the United States -- immediately -- as a threat to national security. If she is a citizen, she ought to be closely watched by the government for any sign of or association with terrorists, then charged and imprisoned accordingly. Anything less -- which is what I expect, sadly -- would be a shameful failure to defend America against its sworn enemies.

(Via Adam Mossoff, who said, "This girl is so soft-spoken about expressing her support of global genocide of Jews, it's like watching a clip from the Nuremburg trials in which the Nazis plainly described their atrocities as if this was no different to them from describing a trip to the beach (and it wasn't).")

Read more...

Protect Families Protect Choices Versus Amendment 62

The Denver Daily News reports that the major opponents of Amendment 48 have rejoined forces to oppose the new "personhood" measure, Amendment 62. Here are a few highlights:

An opposition campaign was announced yesterday to a pro-life ballot question that would give human rights to embryos. Protect Families Protect Choices says it will begin an "aggressive" campaign against Amendment 62, which was qualified by the Secretary of State's office last month for the November 2010 ballot. ... The initiative would effectively ban abortion in the State of Colorado.

"Here we go again," said Leslie Durgin, lead organizer of the opposition campaign and vice president of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains. "Amendment 62 is bad policy, bad law and bad medicine."

Proponents of the initiative are confident that they will have better success this year. Keith Mason, co-founder of Personhood USA, points out that this year proponents have slashed the term "fertilization" from the ballot question, instead using the phrase "biological development." The amendment would read, "The term 'person' shall apply to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being." ...

Opponents do not believe the change in language will help Personhood supporters because it still "presents the same dangerous outcomes."

"In 2008, voters learned that the 'definition of a person' amendment was an overt attempt to insert religion into law," said Jeremy Shaver, executive director of the Interfaith Alliance of Colorado. We will fight once again to make sure Coloradans know the truth about Amendment 62."

The article contains some interesting statistics on likely voting patterns, but I think the "personhood" advocates are kidding themselves: Amendment 62 will go down in flames, just as Amendment 48 did. It's unfortunate that the battle needs to be fought again, but at least it's an opportunity to discuss the proper foundations of abortion rights. So ... "here we go again" is right.

You can find out more about "Protect Families Protect Choices" from its web site.

Read more...

Multiculturalism: Islamist Stick Served on a Silver Platter

For years Islamic thugs have threatened, intimidated or killed those who exercise the fundamental free speech rights that exist in Western culture. Witness Salman Rushdie, Theo Van Gogh, and most recently the creators of the spare-nobody satirical cartoon, "South Park," whose program was recently censored by a trembling network over an innocuous depiction of the prophet, Mohammed.

Islamists have gotten away with bullying the West not only by their own methods of persecution and murder, but by using a tool delivered on a silver platter by the West whom they long to destroy: the idea of multiculturalism.

What is multiculturalism? A dictionary definition is: "the preservation of different cultures or cultural identities within a unified society, as a state or nation."

As a case in point, Australian Supreme Court Justice Spigelman is in a conflicted twist because there are no laws in Australia to address the very-Islamic practices of forced marriage (in which child brides are forced to marry older men) and honor killings (of women and girls for "crimes" like being raped or seeking a divorce).

Justice Spigelman said, "There is a fundamental conflict between a human rights approach to these matters, on the one hand, and the tolerance of cultural traditions, based on the assumption of an equality between cultures on the other hand...There is no way of avoiding the dilemma arising from this conflict of values."

The hell there isn't! Britain outlawed forced marriage in 2005. Sir Ian Blair, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police (which lobbied for the law), said "Multiculturalism does not mean accepting the unacceptable." Voila! Conflict gone!

If Justice Spigelman still can't give up the notion of "equality between cultures," let's put into concrete terms what the "tolerance of cultural traditions" might mean if forced marriage were permitted in a Western country. Take an example from Yemen. That tribal, Islamic country's most influential Muslim cleric called for massive protests against a proposal to raise the minimum age of marriage to 17. The proposed law was drafted in response to the brutally forcible sex by a 23-year-old husband with his 13-year-old bride, who consequently bled to death.

The sheik Adbul-Majid al-Zindani said a ban on child brides "threatens our culture and society and spreads immorality."

Is this the kind of "equality between cultures" that Spigelman has in mind? According to some theories of the value of multiculturalism, the enslavement and rape of girls codified in a barbaric version of "marriage" would necessarily be permitted.

How about if "honor killings" were legalized in Australia out of respect for "cultural tradition"? Maybe there would be cases like a recent one in Turkey, where a two-day-old infant girl was murdered because her mother gave birth out of wedlock, considered a dishonor to the family. Even though predominantly-Muslim Turkey has been under pressure to curb honor-killings in its quest to join the European Union, it is a tradition still widely practiced, particularly in rural and poor areas.

Spigelman's "fundamental conflict" is this: he and other multiculturalists are unwilling to declare there are cultures objectively more conducive to human life than others. A secular Western society that protects the fundamental individual rights of its citizens is more human-life-enhancing than an atavistic, savage culture that represses, tortures and kills in the name of a religion.

The West has groveled to Islamic bullying over freedom of speech and other fundamental rights long enough. Just because Islam is the one religion that considers itself far above criticism or debate of any kind, doesn't mean that Western society should keep cowering in fear, as we have done since the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979.

In the words of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, interviewed by CNN about the "South Park" issue: "as a society we have to take them on."

In addition to such bold freedom-of-speech challenges like "Everybody Draw Mohammad Day," we must also draw a permanent line in the sand: Western society will simply not allow violations of individual rights in the name of Islam or any other religion! Period!

The Islamist bully can just take his silver stick to the corner of the playground and "stick it"!

Read more...

Muslims Threaten South Park

Crossposted from NoodleFood: Last Tuesday, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the author of the stellar book Infidel, published an excellent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on the informal fatwa against South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone. Here's why the supposed warning message posted by 20-year-old Muslim covert "Abu Talhah Al-Amrikee" was a fatwa:

There is a basic principle in Islamic scripture—unknown to most not-so-observant Muslims and most non-Muslims—called "commanding right and forbidding wrong." It obligates Muslim males to police behavior seen to be wrong and personally deal out the appropriate punishment as stated in scripture. In its mildest form, devout people give friendly advice to abstain from wrongdoing. Less mild is the practice whereby Afghan men feel empowered to beat women who are not veiled.

By publicizing the supposed sins of Messrs. Stone and Parker, Mr. Amrikee undoubtedly believes he is fulfilling his duty to command right and forbid wrong. His message is not just an opinion. It will appeal to like-minded individuals who, even though they are a minority, are a large and random enough group to carry out the divine punishment. The best illustration of this was demonstrated by the Somali man who broke into Mr. Westergaard's home in January carrying an axe and a knife.

So what can we do? Ms. Ali has some good suggestions for what we might do to stand up for freedom of speech:

One way of reducing the cost is to organize a solidarity campaign. The entertainment business, especially Hollywood, is one of the wealthiest and most powerful industries in the world. Following the example of Jon Stewart, who used the first segment of his April 22 show to defend "South Park," producers, actors, writers, musicians and other entertainers could lead such an effort.

Another idea is to do stories of Muhammad where his image is shown as much as possible. These stories do not have to be negative or insulting, they just need to spread the risk. The aim is to confront hypersensitive Muslims with more targets than they can possibly contend with.

Another important advantage of such a campaign is to accustom Muslims to the kind of treatment that the followers of other religions have long been used to. After the "South Park" episode in question there was no threatening response from Buddhists, Christians and Jews—to say nothing of Tom Cruise and Barbra Streisand fans—all of whom had far more reason to be offended than Muslims.

Along these lines, Ari Armstrong has launched an Everybody Draw Mohammed campaign. I'll be posting my contribution sometime next week -- and I hope that you will do the same.

Read more...