Saturday, July 30, 2005

Abortion Attitudes

The Times Online has a very disturbing article about abortion, here.

First, the article states that the abortion rate in the UK hit an all time high last year. There were 185,000 women who had abortions last year, compared with 181,000 the year before. What a disturbing trend in and of itself. That works out to about 500 abortions every day all year long. That is very sad.

Second, and even more disturbing, are the quotes from Ann Ferudi of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, the UKs leading provider of abortion services.

“Motherhood is just one among many options open to women and it is not surprising that younger women want to prioritise other things. We should stop seeing abortion as a problem and start seeing it as a legitimate and sensible solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancy.”
I agree that motherhood is just one option for women and that not all women today want to be mothers. However, the rest of this quote is unbelievable. Somehow, we are supposed to stop seeing the mostly unneccessary killing of unborn children as a problem, and start seeing it as a sensible solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancy. Why don't we start seeing abstinance as the legitimate and sensible solution to unwanted pregnancy ... if you don't want to be pregnant, don't have . I find abortion to be an abhorrent dismissal of personal responsibility. And this drive to see killing another human as the solution to the proble, and not the problem itself, drives me nuts.

Marriage was decreasing in popularity and unmarried couples were more likely than married couples to end an unplanned pregnancy, even if they were living together.
This statement fits well with my last post regarding the breakdown of the family unit. Just another example of what occurs when the import of the family is undermined.

Ms Furedi said that women, particularly those in the professional classes, were increasingly reluctant to take breaks that could hinder their careers.
So, rather than be responsible and not get pregnant in the first place, professional women turn to abortion. They can't take the 'break' to have a child, but there is always time in their busy day to head down to the local abortion clinic and utilize the legitimate and sensible solution to their problem of unwanted pregnancy.

To de-bunk the argument that not all pregnancies are consensual, I say I agree. While I still think there are other alternatives to abortion, I can at least see the point of not wanting to carry a baby that is the result of incest or . But, I find it impossible to believe, that there are 500 cases of this per day ... or even 50 a day. Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it.

The Family Unit

This is an interesting article from Albert Mohler's blog. The underlying article discusses the breakdown of the black community as a result of the breakdown in black family structure. We can all learn an important lesson about the importance of a stable family structure where our children have both parents living together, showing each other love and compassion.

The biggest problem I have with gay couples and single parents raising children, is that the children miss an integral part of their development. I believe it is very important for children to have a parent of each , not only to teach the same-sex child how a man or woman should be, but to show the opposite child the qualities they should desire in a spouse. That is the greatest gift a parent can give a child, a loving happy relationship that the child can .

Obviously not every traditional family can or does provide this for its children, but we can certainly hope and pray for the future of the family in our country. Nothing is more important than a strong family unit in raising emotionally balanced children who will in turn raise the same.

I know that there are situations where single parents have no choice but to be in that position. And I know my view is not 'politically correct' regarding gay couples, but a strong family is so important to the long-term heath and development of children.

Thursday, July 28, 2005

Two Great E-Stories

I use that term for lack of a better one.

Simon of Space is an ongoing blog-story about a man who goes through a transportation portal and loses his memory. It is written in a diary/blog format, with each day/event a separate blog entry. It is very well written and just took an incredibly interesting twist. One of the most interesting stories I have read in a very long time.

The writer of Simon of Space also did the Darth Vader blog, which was also very well written.

This guy is very talented.

Friday, July 22, 2005

It's a girl!

My wife and I found out on Monday that we are having another little girl! Very exciting news. We had decided on Sophia Page as her name, but I'm not so sure about her being called Sophie, so we may go with my wife's first choice - Olivia Page. That's starting to grow on me. Can't wait to meet the newest addition to our family.

"Deeply held beliefs"

The left is already begining to stir up opposition to Judge Roberts nomination/confirmation because he is a Roman Catholic. See this article by Robert Novack. Apparantely, religious beliefs now disqualify a person from being a Supreme Court Justice. The concern of the left is that a Catholic's deeply held beliefs are too ingrained for him or her to make any type of judgment not 'clouded' by these beliefs.

It is perfectly fine to have deeply held beliefs that agree with the liberal agenda, but to have deeply held beliefs in conflict with the liberal agenda is a disqualification. This elitist attitude is very disturbing. Only they are 'right' and only they can make 'correct' choices; only they know what is best for everyone. And if you happen to disagree, it shows that you are incabable of making decisions on the meaning of the Constitution.

I cannot stress enough how important it is that our Justices believe in separation of powers and are properly defferential to the Constitution, as it was drafted and ratified, and to our representative branches. This situation is best for everyone, no matter what your political views. You would not have to worry about 5 unelected, unaccountable, and life-tenured lawyers making decisions that should be decided by the people through our representatives.

Let the people decide hotly-debated political issues.

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Scalia Dissents

I am almost finished with this book edited and with commentary by Kevin A. Ring. Scalia Dissents is a collection of opinions written by Justice Scalia. While not finished with it, I thought I would share my thoughts about it anyway. The book contains a handful of thoughtful, well-written, sometimes funny, and always insightful opinions. Scalia is a master wordsmith. He presents his arguments in a very readable yet artful fashion. The opinions cover many of today's most important issues from free-speech to abortion to separation of powers. This book is a must read to understand how a 'constructionalist' Justice sees the role of the Supreme Court. Below are some excerpts from the book that I found particularly interesting for various reasons:

The ad hoc approach to constitutional adjudication has real attraction, even apart from its work-saving potential. It is guaranteed to produce a result, in every case, that will make a majority of the Court happy with the law. The law is, by definition, precisely what the majority thinks, taking all things into account, it ought to be. I prefer to rely upon the judgment of the wise men who constructed our system, and of the people who approved it, and of two centuries of history that have shown it to be sound.


It is comforting to witness the reality that he who lives by the ipse dixit dies by the ipse dixit.

Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988)
Scalia Dissenting
Dealing with separation of powers. Emphasis added.

It is not reasoned judgment that supports the Court's decision; only personal prediliction. Justice Curtis' warning is as timely today as it was 135 years ago: "when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean."

Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt.

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989)
Justice Scalia, concurring part and Concurring in the jdugment.
Dealing with abortion. Edited for format and internal citations omitted.

There is something to be said for popular abolition of the death penalty; there is nothing to be said for its incremental abolition by this Court.

Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002)
Justice Scalia dissenting.
Decision finding execution of mentally retarded criminals is cruel and unusual. Scalia notes that the 5th Amendment specifically contemplates the death penalty: "No person should be held to answer for a capital ... crime ..." and "nor be deprived of life ... without due process"

These views, of course, prevent me from joining today's opinion, which is conspicuously bereft of any reference to history. In holding that the Establishment Clause prohibits invocations and benedictions at public school graduation ceremonies, the Court - with nary a mention that it is doing so - lays waste a tradition that is as old as public school graduation cermonies themselves, and that is a component of an even more longstanding American tradition of non-sectarian prayer to God at public celebrations generally. As its instrument of destruction, the bulldozer of its social engineering, the Court invents a boundless, and boundlessly manipulable, test of psychological coercion, which promises to do for the Establishment Clause what the Durham rule did for the insanity defense. Today's opinion shows more forcefully than volumes of argumentation why our Nation's protection, that fortress which is our Constitution, cannot possibly rest upon the changeable philosophical predilections of the Justices of this Court, but must have deep foundations in the historic practices of our people.

Lee v. Wiseman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992)
Justice Scalia dissenting.
Emphasis added.

The virtues of a democratic system with a First Amendment is that it readily enables the people, over time, to be persuaded that what they took for granted is not so, and to change their laws accordingly. That system is destroyed if the smug assurances of each age are removed from the democratic process and written into the Constitution. So to counterbalance the Court's criticism of our ancestors, let me say a word in their praise: they left us free to change. The same cannot be said of this most illiberal Court, which has embarked on a course of inscribing one after another of the current preferences of society (and in some cases only the counter-majoritarian preferences of the society's law-trained elite) into our Basic Law.


Our task is to clarify the law - not to muddy the waters, and not to exact overcompliance by intimidation. The States and the Federal Government are entitled to know before they act the standard to which they will be held, rather than be compelled to guess about the outcome of Supreme Court peek-a-boo.

United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996)
Scalia dissenting.
Dealing with a state sponsored all-male military academy.

Perhaps voters do detest these 30-second spots—though I suspect they detest even more hour-long campaign-debate interruptions of their favorite entertainment program­ming. Evidently, however, these ads do persuade voters, or else they would not be so routinely used by sophisticated politicians of all parties. The point, in any event, is that it is not the proper role of those who govern us to judge which campaign speech has “substance” and “depth” (do you think it might be that which is least damaging to incumbents?) and to abridge the rest.


The first instinct of power is the retention of power, and, under a Constitution that requires periodic elections, that is best achieved by the suppression of election-time speech. We have witnessed merely the second scene of Act I of what promises to be a lengthy tragedy. In scene 3 the Court, having abandoned most of the First Amendment weaponry that Buckley left intact, will be even less equipped to resist the incumbents’ writing of the rules of political debate. The federal election campaign laws, which are already (as today’s opinions show) so voluminous, so detailed, so complex, that no ordinary citizen dare run for office, or even contribute a significant sum, without hiring an expert advisor in the field, can be expected to grow more voluminous, more detailed, and more complex in the years to come— and always, always, with the objective of reducing the excessive amount of speech.

McConnell v. FEC, 124 S. Ct. 619 (2003)
Scalia concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Dealing with McCain-Feingold Act

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

The Supreme Court battle begins

The president announced the nomination of Judge John Roberts for Supreme Court Justice.

This is good news for conservatives. His reputation is that of a strict constructionalist. This is a good sign that Bush is making good on his promise to only appoint Justices who believe that the Constitution means what it says and understand how important the Federal system established by our founding fathers is to our continued liberties.

The left is already stating it's reservations about how the world will end if Roberts is confirmed. How our 'rights' will not be protected. The big issue is abortion. The left calls it 'women's reproductive rights' - a wolf in lambs clothing. As if changing the name changes the procedure. Like handi-capable means anything other than handicap.

He co-wrote a brief on behalf of the government in a case in 1991 that stated Roe v. Wade 'find[s] no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution.' This brief is being touted as evidence that he will push to overturn Roe v. Wade. Perhaps those who state this don't understand that a brief written by the solicitor general is no reflection on the personal beliefs of the person writing it. The position of the government is established, then the lawyer drafts the brief to support that conclusion. The attorney does not establish the government position. (As I am writing this, a local news reporter is stating his concern over women's reproductive rights; as if women will be forced to have and become impregnated or forced to have their ovaries removed so they cannot reproduce).

If that is his personal view, he's right. Anyone who has read the Court's decision in Roe v. Wade is hard pressed to determine exactly where the Constitution guarantees a right to an abortion. While stating that the Constitution does not explicitly mention a right of privacy, the Court goes on to state it can be implied from the 14th Amendments concepts of personal liberty and restrictions on state actions. The 14th Amendment states includes no explicit right to privacy. Section 1 states that states shall not make or enforce laws that abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; states shall not deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property without due process; nor can states deny persons equal protection of the laws. No mention of privacy or abortion. Justices had to infer a right to privacy, and then state that abortion was included inside a general right to privacy. This is not supported by the text of the Constitution, the structure of the Constitution, nor by the history of the Constitution. Robert's view was right.

It is important for all citizens that we have a judiciary that follows the laws as written by our representatives and as stated in the Constitution. To have otherwise is dangerous, and not just because I have disagreed with the Court's 70 year liberal slide. When the Court's power is not limited by the clear words of the Constitution, when the Constitution can be manipulated to mean whatever 5 lawyers sitting on the Court thinks they should mean, then we are no longer a country run by laws, we are a country run by 5 men and women. The Court becomes our dictator. We must petition the Court to change the laws. Our votes mean nothing, except to possibly lead to a judicial nominee who may share our beliefs. This is clearly not what the founders intended, or why even have a legislative branch?

The Left constantly states they are afraid of 'conservative' Justices rolling back our 'rights'. They fear this because they have been unable to make their liberal agenda law through the legislative branch but they have managed to impose their beliefs through the Judiciary. They fear a role reversal. I do to. Justices should not be imposing their will on this country, whether one agrees with their views or not. Who knows what the views of the next crop of Judicial Tyranists will impose upon us?

We should all fear conservative or liberal judges who use their positions to legislate. The left, however, need also fear judges who will no longer impose the liberal agenda upon us, judges who will defer to the laws as established by our representatives unless they clearly violate the plain meaning of the Constitution.

The most likely result of the Court overturning Roe v. Wade would be that most states would again make abortion illegal in most situations, while some would keep abortion on demand legal. That's OK with me. That's where that decision belongs, with the States.

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

Back to the Blog

I realized it has been forever since I last wrote to myself. I'm sure no one else is reading this, but, so what.

My older daughter, Abby, just had her 'family' 3rd birthday party. For those counting, that is her second 3rd birthday party; remember the clown at the last party? We only had a couple of people over; my wife thought it would be nice to actually have cake and ice cream on her birthday ... she's a softie.

On the fourth of July, I took the family and my sister-in-law and her husband to Myrddyn's house for a party. It was really nice. It is hard to travel with children, but it was awesome to go. M and his wife are incredible hosts. It was just nice to visit with them and all the guys and gals in Y-Town. Thanks for having us and thanks for being our friends ...

My wife and I will be celebrating our 7th wedding anniversary in a few weeks. I'm not sure what I am going to get her, she's hard to shop for. Probably because I am not sensitive enough to pick up on what she wants. Oh, well. Maybe I'll get her a new vacuum ... the house looks a bit dusty.

That was a joke. Please don't kill me, honey ... as if anyone else is even reading this!