Islam and Rape: Two Stories

First, Scott Connery of Rational Public Radio reports on a horrifying case in which Alicia Gali travels to the supposedly modern Muslim country of the United Arab Emirates, where she is drugged and raped, then imprisoned in brutal conditions for nearly a year... for the crime of adultery. Why? Because she reported the rape to the police.

Second, in Bangladesh, a 14 year old girl is raped by an older man who had been harassing her for some time, then sentenced to 100 lashes, also for adultery. She collapses and dies after receiving 70 lashes. The initial autopsy reported no injuries (!!) to her body, saying that her death was a suicide. Her parents -- father and mother -- are seeking justice for their innocent daughter, even at the risk of reprisals.

If you think that Judaism or Christianity are much better, that their holy texts would never sanction such atrocities, think again.

Read more...

Tim Peck on Marriage Equality

Tim Peck recently published the following excellent letter to the editor in the Asheville Tribune in defense of equality in marriage:

Dear Editor,

Contrary to the editorial position of the conservative Asheville Tribune (http://is.gd/habmyh), imposing a Christian version of Sharia law on free Americans in a pluralistic society is thrice-times wrong.

Marital union is a voluntary, peaceable and rightful contract between free adults; often involving property, reputations, assets and even children. Just as in any promissory contract, it is the proper role of the government to adjudicate contestable disputes should they arise. Sadly, our gay citizens are prohibited by law from entering into these romantic contracts. This is a violation of individual rights and a proper government should stand against these prohibitions; as the Equality Resolution does.

In the state of North Carolina, heterosexual couples can legally marry. This qualifies them for certain privileges and legal recognition. Homosexual couples are immorally prevented by the government from getting married, according to the dictates of their best judgment. This is a violation of individual rights. To compensate for this objective injustice, the City, among other things, will create a registry of gay couples, who are forced to remain single, that meets certain criteria for a civil union in the event that institutions are inclined to recognize and respect their rights. Were gays able to exercise their natural born right to marriage, none of this would be necessary.

To cavalierly suggest, as the Tribune does, that gay men are free to marry lesbian women, or vice versa, is an appeal to illogic and oppression. It is like saying that you are free to practice religion so long it is the religion of Islam. Whoever agrees to the one, must agree to the other.

Tim Peck
Asheville

Thank you for speaking out so clearly and cogently, Tim!

Read more...

Ari Armstrong: Individual Rights Versus Force

Ari Armstrong speaking on individual rights versus force at Liberty Toastmasters:



Too many advocates of abortion rights seek to violate our rights to property and contract. This speech explains why the violation of those rights is akin to slavery.

Read more...

'Personhood' and the Fetal Protection Bill

Anti-abortion activists killed a bill to protect fetuses from criminal and reckless harm, as I recently pointed out. Over at Big Media, Jason Salzman also quotes from the Colorado Christian Family Alliance, which opposed the bill.

Today, Lynn Bartels of the Denver Post advances the story by paraphrasing State Representative Mark Waller, who blames the pro-choice side for including language denying the legal "personhood" of fetuses.

Bartels also quotes Colorado Right to Life as accusing Waller of failing to fight the "battle with the liberal, godless, left-wing abortion industry." (Obviously the line is intended as a smear on multiple counts; many people other than those who facilitate abortions favor legal abortion, as do many religious people and non-left-wing people.)

But Bartels is wrong to imply that the "single sentence" about personhood is what primarily doomed the bill. Both the Colorado Catholic Conference and the Colorado Christian Family Alliance mention the personhood line, but they also dislike the fact that the bill repealed other (mostly unenforceable) laws pertaining to abortion. A release yesterday from the Alliance does not even mention the "personhood" issue (see below).

Notably, the Alliance gives anti-abortion activists full credit for killing the bill, and the Alliance pledges to accept only clearly "pro-life," meaning anti-abortion, language.

The Alliance material quoted by Salzman also claims the bill "codifies taxpayer funding for abortion mills." But I looked at the bill and found no language along those lines.

Obviously the anti-abortion crowd is attempting to hijack the fetal protection bill, which is why the line about "personhood" was important. To review, in 2010 State Senator Dave Schultheis ran a bill explicitly granting legal "personhood" to fetuses, and in 2008 and 2010 anti-abortion groups ran a "personhood" initiative in Colorado (and have threatened to do so again in 2012).

So for Waller to accuse the pro-choice side of hanging up the bill over "personhood" language is completely disingenuous. The central problem is that the anti-abortion side will not allow a bill to proceed unless it is a backdoor attempt to outlaw abortion.

Another reason why language denying legal "personhood" to fetuses was needed in this year's bill (1256) is that its title and language explicitly refers to an "unborn child." As I've argued, this "vague, non-objective" language "obscures the important distinction between a fetus and a born child." Given that ambiguity, language clarifying that a fetus is not in fact legally a "person" is absolutely essential to the bill.

Now, for a bill with a neutral title, such as "A Bill to Protect Embryos and Fetuses from Criminal and Reckless Harm," specific language about "personhood" would not be necessary, so long as the bill's provisions unambiguously refrained from restricting abortions.

In general, a good bill would be much shorter and much simpler than 1256. However, a good bill must also prevent anti-abortion zealots from hijacking the law for backdoor abortion bans.

March 17 Release from the Christian Family Alliance of Colorado

Pro-Life Citizens Rally to kill sneak attack on Colorado's voter-passed Pro-life Laws
Even the bill's drafter, attorney Michael Dohr, admitted the bill "removes all criminal abortion statutes" thereby ratifying abortion-on-demand in Colorado

Denver, CO – Today, Christian Family Alliance of Colorado responded to deceptive State House GOP leadership back pedaling on a bill designed to subvert Colorado's voter-passed pro-life laws.

HB 1256, the so-called fetal homicide bill, inspired by a recent hit and run crime committed against an Aurora women and her unborn child, was pulled after pro-life citizens rallied to expose the deceitful bill.

The language of the bill, rather than address only fetal homicide, went far beyond to strike part 1 of article 6 of title 18 that would decriminalize all abortion related criminal activity.

"It saddens CFAC to know that even House GOP leadership seemed prepared to nullify all of Colorado’s voter-passed pro-life laws and therefore ratify abortion-on-demand in the Centennial State," said Neville.

"We'd expect that from a Planned Parenthood lobbyist like Senate sponsor Pat Steadman, but not from those who claim to value the lives of unborn children."

"Thankfully pro-life citizens rallied in time to end the travesty that was HB 1256. They are now looking forward to working with real pro-life legislation that will finally close Colorado's fetal homicide loop hole," concluded Neville.

Note: This post originally appeared on Ari Armstrong's blog.

Read more...

Anti-Abortion Zealots Kill Fetal Protection Bill

You'd think anti-abortion zealots might want to protect fetuses from criminal harm, right? Wrong.

"Right-fringe... abortion extremists" opposed Colorado House Bill 1256, as State Senator Pat Steadman told Lynn Bartels of the Denver Post, causing the bill's sponsors to withdraw the measure concerning fetal protection.

As I've reviewed, Colorado law is deficient in that it criminalizes only intentional termination of a pregnancy (against the woman's wishes). What if, through a criminal or reckless act, somebody unintentionally kills a woman's wanted fetus? That's what happened with the hit-and-run in Denver.

The new bill defined four levels of offense: intentionally killing a fetus after deliberation (against the woman's wishes), intentionally killing a fetus without prior deliberation, recklessly causing the death of a fetus while knowing the woman is pregnant, and recklessly causing the death of a fetus without knowing the woman is pregnant. These basic categories of offense make a lot of sense, which is why I favored the bill (despite some problems with it).

In a subsequent op-ed, I offered the basic theoretical foundation for such a law: "Legal protections for a woman's fetus properly extend from the legal rights of the woman herself."

Why, then, did anti-abortion activists, who claim to want to protect fetuses, oppose the bill? On March 14, the Colorado Catholic Conference sent an action alert via email opposing 1256. This Catholic group offered two main arguments. First, the "bill fails to recognize an unborn child as a separate victim of homicide or assault," as the bill explicitly states that a fetus is not a person under law. Second:

The Colorado Catholic Conference also opposes the fact that this bill seeks to repeal the criminal abortion statute that is still on the books in Colorado. The pro-life community looks forward to the day when Roe vs. Wade is overturned, and there is no benefit to the pro-life community to repeal our criminal abortion statute, even if currently it is not enforceable.

I take it this refers to statutes 18-6-101 through 18-6-105, which bill 1256 would have repealed. Statute 18-6-102 outlaws the ending of a "pregnancy of a woman by any means other than justified medical termination or birth." The key, then, is what constitutes "justified medical termination," which 18-6-101 defines. The measure severely restricts abortion to cases of likely death of the woman, "serious permanent impairment of the physical health of the woman" (including mental health), serious fetal deformity, cases where the woman is under sixteen, rape, and incest.

As I have argued, these statutes seriously violate the rights of pregnant women to get an abortion. But apparently the Colorado Catholic Conference would rather prevent actual laws that protect fetuses from criminal harm, in order to leave unenforceable statutes on the books that outlaw elective abortions.

This is just the latest illustration of how anti-abortion zealots undermine the rights and lives of actual people, in order to maintain the faith-based fantasy that a zygote is a person. So the next time a criminal gets away with killing a woman's fetus, feel free to blame the anti-abortion crusaders who killed bill 1256.

Note: This article originally appeared on Ari Armstrong's blog.

Update: See also the report at BigMedia.org.

Read more...

South Dakota to Legalize Murder of Abortion Doctors?

This news from South Dakota is just mind-boggling:

South Dakota's legislature is considering a bill that would legalize killing someone to prevent the harm of a fetus--a measure which could be used to defend people who kill abortion doctors. The legislation changes the legal definition of "justifiable homicide" to include killing a person "while resisting an attempt to harm" the killer's fetus, or the fetus of the killer's parent, child, spouse, or partner. That's even in cases when the pregnant person wants an abortion, Mother Jones' Kate Sheppard reports.

South Dakota legislators have tried repeatedly to outlaw abortion, but those bans were rejected by voters. So they've passed several laws to chip away at abortion rights, Sheppard reports. Women seeking an abortion have to listen to a lecture that they're terminating "the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being," then wait 24 hours to get the medical procedure. And for 16 years, the state has had no abortion providers--Planned Parenthood flies in a doctor once a week to Sioux Falls.

This is not some wacky bill sponsored by a rogue legislator with no chance of passing it: the measure made it out of committee on a party-line vote. Republicans have huge majorities in both chambers: 70 to 19 in the House and 35 to 5 in the Senate. And many Democrats oppose abortion. The National Abortion Federation's president Vicki Saporta says the bill is not abstract, but "an invitation to murder abortion providers."

Go read the whole article.

Read more...

'Unlawful Termination of a Pregnancy'

An odd Associated Press story published by today's Denver Post discusses a new bill to make the "unlawful termination of a pregnancy" a felony. What is odd about it is that Colorado statutes already make that a felony. Given the AP reporter didn't review the differences between existing statutes and the new bill, I'll go ahead and do it.

Linked through the Colorado legislature page are the Colorado Revised Statutes. Following are the relevant statutes already on the books:

18-3.5-101. Unlawful termination of pregnancy.

(1) A person commits the offense of unlawful termination of a pregnancy if, with intent to terminate unlawfully the pregnancy of another person, the person unlawfully terminates the other person's pregnancy.

(2) Unlawful termination of a pregnancy is a class 4 felony.

18-3.5-102. Exclusions.

Nothing in this article shall permit the prosecution of a person for providing medical treatment, including but not limited to an abortion, in utero treatment, or treatment resulting in live birth, to a pregnant woman for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which consent is implied by law.

Last year a Mesa County court sentenced a man to five years in prison for this crime, the Daily Sentinel reported.

So how is the new bill, 1256, introduced February 11, different? Mainly, it is much more complicated. It defines "unlawful termination of a pregnancy" from the first through fourth degrees. It also defines "vehicular unlawful termination of a pregnancy, and aggravated vehicular unlawful termination of a pregnancy."

While the bill improperly refers to "unborn children," thereby obscuring the very large difference between a born child and a fetus, it "does not confer the status of 'person' upon a human embryo, fetus, or unborn child at any stage of development prior to live birth."

It does make sense to increase the criminal penalties for deliberation and intent, as well as to criminalize reckless acts that cause the death of a fetus.

However, the sections pertaining to vehicles -- which constitute the bulk of the bill -- seem redundant; it shouldn't matter in law whether somebody kills a woman's fetus by recklessly driving a vehicle or through some other means. Notably, the sections pertaining to vehicles also include a lot of detail about driving under the influence of various substances, also unnecessary for this law. Obviously if someone is driving drunk, that is an instance of the broader category of reckless behavior.

In sum, this is a good bill overall that needs some amending. Specifically, the ambiguous, non-objective language about an "unborn child" should be removed, as should all the material specific to vehicles and operating vehicles under the influence of drugs. The legislature should strive to keep bills as short and simple as possible. However, because existing statutes on the matter are imprecise and don't allow for varying degrees of offense, the new bill (unlike most of the bills floating through the legislature) serves a legitimate purpose of protecting the rights of pregnant women.

This article originally was published on Ari Armstrong's blog.

Read more...

Unprecedented Attack on Separation of Church and State

Social conservatives riding on the coattails of the Tea Party movement must be thinking we're too distracted with Obamacare to notice while they perpetrate their mischief. How else to explain a bill in the Oklahoma Senate to rescind the state's constitutional guarantee of religious freedom?

Article 2 Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution states:

No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary, or sectarian institution as such.

Apparently those pushing the Governor's Office of Faith-based Initiatives and things like faith programs in prisons and tax dollars for religious schools are annoyed enough and emboldened enough by the Republican takeover of Oklahoma's government to try to remove that passage. Senate Joint Resolution 23 calls for a state question to remove Article 2 Section 5 to be put on the ballot for a vote. Be on the lookout for this to happen in your state!

(Here is a perfect illustration of the hypocrisy of social conservatives who try to pass themselves off as Tea Partiers: they don't want limits on the government's ability to intrude on religious matters. This will only lead to bigger government, not smaller government.)

Read more...

Religious Indoctrination in the Military

Here's another personal report from an American soldier on indoctrination in the military:

M[y] religion? I was born a Methodist and guess I still am one. I’m not very religious but consider myself to be a Christian. I don’t go to chapel services that often although I go every now and then. I can’t stand the chaplains as most of them are trying to always get me and my friends to “commit to Christ” and be far more religious as well as they try to get more and more soldiers to get more and more soldiers to be the same type of “committed Christian”. I cannot count the number of times that these chaplains and my own chain of command has described this war we fight as a religious one against the Muslims and their “false, evil and violent” religion. I am a Christian and therefore neither an agnostic nor an atheist though many of my fellow soldiers are such. Now to the point. I, and everyone else who is enlisted in my company, was ORDERED by my Battalion Commander to take the GAT’s Spiritual Fitness Test not very long ago. Let me make this CLEAR, we were all ORDERD to take it.

After we did, our unit’s First Sgt. individually asked us all how we did on the test. There was NO “anonymity” at all. None of us were ever told that we did NOT have to take this Spiritual Fitness Test nor that we did NOT have to tell our FIrst Sgt. what our results were. A bunch of us “failed” the SFT and when we told that to our First Sgt., per his disclosure order, he further ordered us to make immediate appointments with the chaplains so that we would not “kill ourselves on his watch”. None of us wanted to do it but we were scared. None of us wanted to get in the shits with our First Sgt. who can and will make life miserable for anyone who might have said no to him.

They keep saying that this is all to stop us soldiers from killing ourselves but THIS degrading SFT “failure” only makes it worse. Two of my battle buddies who I KNOW are thinking of ending it all were a million times worse off after failing this SFT and being called a “spiritual failure” and then ordered to go see the chaplains. I felt like a total coward for not standing up to my First Sgt. but I did what he told me to do. I was scared to tell him no.

So I went to see the chaplain. When this chaplain told me that I failed the SFT because it was “Jesus’ way of personally knocking on my door as an invitation for me to come to Him as a born again ‘REAL’ Christian” so that I could be saved and not burn forever in Hell for rejecting him, I thought of 3 things. First, I thought of the fact that I was already born a Christian and did not need to be born again. Second, I thought of my battle buddy (name and rank withheld) who took a bullet for me in his face during the Battle of (name of Iraqi battle withheld) and that he was the same kind of Christian as me and this chaplain is telling me that my battle buddy (name and rank withheld) is burning in hell for all time. Third, I thought how I wanted to blow that fucking chaplain’s head right off.

If that's the treatment that born-once Christians receive, I can only imagine the problems that some commanders create for atheists and agnostics. Go read the whole thing.

Read more...

A Miraculous Shooting?

We can indeed be thankful that Gabrielle Giffords survived the attempt to take her life. It was a horrifying event, a slaughter of innocents, and an assault on our Republic. No doubt Giffords faces a tough recovery.

But was her survival a miracle, as I have heard numerous people claim? Today The Christian Post reported, "About 77 percent of American voters said they believed that prayer literally helped Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords survive the Tucson shooting, according to a Fox News poll released Thursday."

Was it miraculous that the murderer killed six and wounded fourteen more?

If God were interested in miraculous intervention (and if he existed), why would he wait until after the bullets struck their victims to take action? Following are some examples of what might have been truly useful and impressive miracles. God could have placed the murderer in a force field to prevent him from shooting people. God could have called down from the heavens, "Be warned! Take cover! A mass murderer is approaching your location!" God could have given all the victims temporary superpowers, such that the bullets bounced off of them (like Superman). Or, God could simply have totally healed Giffords on the spot.

If miraculous intervention kept Giffords alive, why didn't God step in to save the six people slaughtered? Did God not care about them? Were they not worthy of miraculous intervention? Were the prayers of their loved ones not honored by God?

True, people shot in the head often die, so, given the fact that Giffords was shot, she was relatively lucky to survive and start down the path to recovery. But she was immensely unlucky to be shot in the first place, so to call her subsequent survival a "miracle" is to abuse the language. One might as well claim it was a "miracle" that she was shot and six others died.

We take some comfort in the fact that Giffords survived the shooting, and we hope for her recovery. But, in recognition of the immense trauma she in fact suffered, and out of respect for those who died, let's not chalk up the events of that day to miracles and prayer.

This post originally was published on Ari Armstrong's blog.

Read more...

Ricky Gervais, Atheist

Last month, comedian Ricky Gervais published a statement in the Wall Street Journal entitled A Holiday Message From Ricky Gervais: Why I’m an Atheist. I'd heard that it was good, but when I read it, I enjoyed it more than I expected. Here's a taste:

Why don’t I believe in God? No, no no, why do YOU believe in God? Surely the burden of proof is on the believer. You started all this. If I came up to you and said, “Why don’t you believe I can fly?” You’d say, “Why would I?” I’d reply, “Because it’s a matter of faith.” If I then said, “Prove I can’t fly. Prove I can’t fly see, see, you can’t prove it can you?” You’d probably either walk away, call security or throw me out of the window and shout, ‘’F—ing fly then you lunatic.”

And:

The dictionary definition of God is “a supernatural creator and overseer of the universe.” Included in this definition are all deities, goddesses and supernatural beings. Since the beginning of recorded history, which is defined by the invention of writing by the Sumerians around 6,000 years ago, historians have cataloged over 3700 supernatural beings, of which 2870 can be considered deities.

So next time someone tells me they believe in God, I’ll say “Oh which one? Zeus? Hades? Jupiter? Mars? Odin? Thor? Krishna? Vishnu? Ra?…” If they say “Just God. I only believe in the one God,” I’ll point out that they are nearly as atheistic as me. I don’t believe in 2,870 gods, and they don’t believe in 2,869.

Christians, in fact, used to be called "atheists" by the pagan Romans, because they denied the existence of so many gods.

Of particular interest to me was just how small of a suggestion he required, as a young boy, to reject Christianity. But you can read the whole thing for that.

The follow-up -- Does God Exist? Ricky Gervais Takes Your Questions -- was even more fun. Here are my favorite bits:

Woody Allen is widely quoted as having once said: “You cannot prove the nonexistence of God; you just have to take it on faith.” Is being an atheist as unscientific a stance as believing in God? Isn’t it more intellectually honest to be agnostic?

Well Woody Allen was being facetious but makes a good point. Is being an atheist as unscientific a stance as believing in God? No definitely not. How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself?

And:

People who believe in God sometimes have moments of doubt about their faith. Have you had any moments of doubt about your atheism?

Atheism isn’t a belief system. I have a belief system but it’s not “based on” atheism, it’s just not based on the existence of a god. I make none of my moral, social, or artistic decisions based on any god or superstitions. Saying atheism is a belief system is like saying not going skiing is a hobby. I’ve never been skiing. It’s my biggest hobby. I literally do it all the time. But to answer your question I am constantly faced with theories of God, and angels, and hell. It’s everywhere. But unless there is an ounce of credibility to it, I reject. I have to. You can’t lie to yourself. If you do you’ve only fooled a deluded person and where’s the victory in that?

To top it off, here's Gervais mocking Genesis:



Like many atheists today, Gervais' weakness is his acceptance of the morality of altruism. Yet he doesn't seem as deeply committed to that as many of the new atheists, and overall, I came away impressed... and amused.

Read more...

Final Thoughts on the "Personhood" Pledge

Just a few days ago, I closed the books on the pledge project for Ari Armstrong's and my policy paper, The 'Personhood' Movement Is Anti-Life. I'm so grateful to all the people who contributed to Ari's and my work by their pledges. The paper would not have been updated without those contributions -- many of them very generous and all of them appreciated. Given that the measure didn't even break 30%, I'm so glad that we put in those grueling hours. Plus, I'm really proud that we offered the most substantive defense of abortion rights from an Objectivist perspective written to date.

I can't properly explain how motivating the pledges are. It's not just that I'm paid for my work. It's that I'm paid directly by individuals, many of whom I know personally. And in the process of pledging, those people tell me what my work means to them. Given that activism can seem like a grind sometimes, that's hugely important to me.

Amy Mossoff was one of the pledgers on this project, and I really appreciated her take on the pledge model as a way of raising money for such projects. Here's what she said, shortly after the paper was released:

I haven't read the whole paper yet (just the intro), but I already know that am pleased with my (oh so small) investment. Thanks for your great work, and the brilliant pledge idea, which allows me to support things like this without sacrificing or else feeling like my scarce money was just a meaningless drop in the bucket.

Exactly!

Unfortunately -- and for the very first time -- a few people failed to make good on their pledges. I've sent multiple invoices over many months, but I've not heard back from these few people. I wouldn't mind quite so much if they would just write me to explain. As I've said with every pledge project, I'll gladly void the pledge (or offer a refund) to anyone not satisfied with the product delivered, provided that he explains his reasons. Of course, if a person lost his job and needed every penny to put food on the table, I'd be happy to void his pledge too. I'd just like to hear back, so that I'm not left hanging. So... if you're one of those people who pledged but never paid, please do me the courtesy of e-mailing me some kind of explanation.

For now, while I have so many other projects in the works, I've decided to put the Coalition for Secular Government on hold. I might blog for Politics without God on occasion, but likely nothing more. However, never fear... Ari and I will surely fight Colorado's next "personhood" measure in 2012. We've already put in far too much work on the issue to let those theocratic bastards take the moral high ground... ever!

Read more...

Atheists Unfit to Serve

Al Stefanelli blogs on the implications of the "Soldier Fitness Tracker" for atheists in US Army: Atheists Unfit To Serve

Did you know that the United States Army is concerned with the spiritual well-being of their soldiers? Did you know that if you choose not to believe in the supernatural that the United States Army can consider you unfit to serve? Allow me to enlighten you about an issue that was brought to my attention by my friend, Sgt. Justin Griffith, Fort Bragg, NC. The US Army distributes a mandatory survey called an SFT, which stands for “Soldier Fitness Tracker”. The purpose of this survey is to measure an individual soldier’s competency in four areas, Emotional, Social, Family and Spiritual. Justin is an atheist, as well as a highly dedicated soldier, but according to the SFT, he is “unfit” to serve specifically because he is a non-believer.

Go read the whole thing.

Read more...

Catholic Policy: Women Should Die Rather Than Terminate Any Pregnancy

The Catholic Church has cut ties with a Arizona hospital because doctors aborted an 11-week old embryo in order to save the mother's life from a blood pressure problem that would have resulted in her death.

Bishop Thomas Olmsted called the 2009 procedure an abortion and said St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center -- recognized internationally for its neurology and neurosurgery practices -- violated ethical and religious directives of the national Conference of Catholic Bishops.

"In the decision to abort, the equal dignity of mother and her baby were not both upheld," Olmsted said at a news conference announcing the decision. "The mother had a disease that needed to be treated. But instead of treating the disease, St. Joseph's medical staff and ethics committee decided that the healthy, 11-week-old baby should be directly killed."

To speak of the Catholic Church's view on abortion -- a position that seeks to force women to maintain pregnancies so dangerous that the only result will be the death of both woman and fetus -- as "pro-life" is an abuse of language worthy of 1984. On this matter, as on many others, the Church is explicitly, consciously, and deliberately anti-life and pro-death.

Read more...

How Abortion Cost Ken Buck the U.S. Senate Race

Ken Buck's anti-abortion stance cost him the U.S. Senate seat in Colorado.

True, Buck had other problems. He made a few gaffes, as when he jokingly said he should win because he he doesn't wear high heels (a response to his primary opponent's many references to gender), and when he likened homosexuality to alcoholism. The left unfairly attacked Buck for his prosecutorial work on a gun case and a rape case. Moreover, the Democrats did a good job getting out the vote for Michael Bennet.

But Buck's anti-abortion position made more difference than any of those other things, alienating many women and independent voters. And it was only in the context of Buck's perceived antagonism toward women's right to control their own bodies that the "high heels" comment and the claims about a mishandled rape case gained traction.

A couple of claims Buck simply could not rebut, because they were true: he opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest, and he initially endorsed Amendment 62, the so-called "personhood" measure, even though he later backtracked and said he wasn't taking positions on state ballot measures.

The result? Bennet "led Buck with female voters, 56 percent to 40 percent, according to the [exit] polls, and... Bennet beat Buck among unaffiliated voters in the polls, 52 percent to 41 percent." Moreover, "Bennet also did better among Republicans than Buck did among Democrats in the polls." My guess is that the number of Republican women to voted for Bennet or at least declined to vote for Buck was substantial.

Buck whined after the election, "I wasn't going to derail my message to have an election decided on abortion, or any social issue, for that matter." But when you endorse a ballot measure that would totally ban abortion (along with various forms of birth control and fertility treatments), what you've done precisely is make the election largely about abortion.

Consider some of the other relevant news about the issue.

"Gov. Bill Ritter... agreed [with Republican Mike Rosen] that Republican Senate candidate Ken Buck’s hard-line stance on abortion helped cost him the election."

"Ken Buck Hit Hard On Birth Control, Abortion In New DSCC Ad."

Bennet ran partly on "protecting [women's] rights to safe, legal abortion."

"Rape, incest victims rally against Buck."

"Ken Buck: Opponents rally rape and incest survivors to decry his abortion policy."

"Dem ads on reproductive rights aim to sharpen Sen. Bennet's appeal to women."

Bennet "seems to be the only candidate that's not anti-abortion... I'm not really excited about him as a candidate -- he's kind of overspent in Washington."

Or consider a first and second ad hammering Buck on his anti-abortion stance and related issues.

Or consider a few of the flyers mailed to my wife, an unaffiliated voter. These mailers, paid for by Planned Parenthood Action Fund, take some unfair shots at Buck but effectively hammer him on abortion. And they clearly link Buck to Amendment 62 and note that Bennet opposed the measure.









This article originally was published on Ari Armstrong's blog.

Read more...