Daily Archives: October 7, 2005

Me on Miers

You know, I’ve heard it a lot from skeptical or apolitical pro-lifers and from compromise-Democrats:
“Republicans don’t care any more about right-to-life than Democrats do.”
And you know what I said? “Still, it’s the party platform. We have to give it a try. But if, after thirty years of struggle, we finally get a Republican government, and they do nothing, then it shows their true motives.”
It behooves us to recall that,

In 1824, a particularly bitter election was thrown to the House of
Representatives, and John Quincy Adams was
elected after being supported by Henry Clay even though Andrew
had won a plurality of electoral votes, and the plurality of popular
votes in states where electors were chosen by direct election. (Source: Wikipedia)

And then, in 1850, the Whig Party itself split over its ineptitude on the slavery issue.

Now, granted, both parties were split and divided over the issue of Slavery. And the modern-day Democrats are starting to realize that their position on abortion hurts them.
But in 1860, Abraham Lincoln won for the same reason Bill Clinton won in 1992 & 1996: a Three-Party election (in taht case, two different factions of Democrats versus the Republicans).

This election has shown the strength of the “Radical Religious Right”, much to the fear of the Secularist world.

The history of the abortion issue since 1973 has paralleled (and sometimes inverted) that of the slavery issue before the Civil War.

Time will tell whether Miers is nominated, and whether Miers or Roberts is truly a strict-constructionist. It’s possible that, since Miers *is* an intellectual lightweight and has no judicial experience, she’ll follow suit with Scalia and Thomas, who are now the dominant intellects of the Court.

It’s most likely that Bush is really sincere in this appointment. As some have suggested, he’s reaching out to Evangelicals and Populists by appointing an Evangelical who is not an “Ivy-Leaguer” (see the Ann Coulter link below for a superb response to that). But a president should not make decisions on his gut instincts. It’s incredibly dangerous when a President believes he’s receiving special divine revelations.

And, as many commentators have said, it’s kind of hard to accept “trust me” from a man who’s given us no reason to, other than beautiful, moving speeches, over the past five years:

1. He allowed federal money for ESCR.
2. He passed the biggest entitlement in US history.
3. He passed the biggest education bureaucracy bill in US history.
4. His “Patriot Act” gutted the Bill of Rights
5. His vague definitions of a “War on Terror”, given the past administration’s focus on pro-lifers as the worst terrorist threat in America, poses a dangerous precedent.
6. Then there’s the whole Iraq-thing.

I’m starting to think that the liberals are right, and Bush is a far greater–and more skillful-liar than Clinton.

But if he is, that will only help our cause by exposing the hypocrisy of the GOP and driving Conservatives to the Constitution Party or the Libertarians in the next election.
When even Ann Coulter and co. are saying Bush has flubbed this one,
and when even Fox News says he should apologize for his handling of New Orleans,
this guy has a lot of explaining to do.

Peggy Noonan on Miers

Ann Coulter on Miers

Italian "Terri Schiavo" Wakes up

Of course, the Pro-deathers would just say that “He wasn’t brain dead. She was.”

Catholic Health Association on Vatican Statement

It never fails.
The Vatican comes out with a clear-cut statement that anyone can read “with half their brain tied around their back,” to paraphrase Rush Limbaugh.
But people have to come up with their own “summaries” to distort the message in favor of a libear interpretation. Case in point:
Sr. Pat Talone, PhD & Ron Hamel, PhD, of the Catholic Health Association, issued a summary of the letter with the following “conclusion”:
[quote]For the vaccines that currently have no alternative, their use is morally lawful “on a temporary basis” and “insomuch as is necessary” to ensure the health and safety of one’s self and the community. This lawful use is “justified as an extrema ratio [extreme reason]” that comes in the “context of moral coercion” because no alternative exists for parents “who are forced to choose to act against their conscience or otherwise, to put the health of their children and of the population as a whole at risk. [/quote]

Problem is this: The Vatican document says these things *in case of epidemic*, not in the case of “average prevention.” These conditions for “temporary basis” and “extreme reason” apply to, say, women who are pregnant during Rubella outbreaks. What’s better is this next line:

[quote]It is right to abstain from using morally problematic vaccines (for which there are no alternatives) if it can be done without causing children, and indirectly the population as a whole, significant risks to their health. [/quote]
This is NOWHERE in the Vatican document. Note how they put it? They put the guilt on the pro-lifers. And of course, through in the vague statement “indirectly the population as a whole.”

SO, let me get this straight, babies were directly *killed* to make a vaccine, but these people think one is morally obliged to *use* that vaccine to prevent the hypothetical health risk to “the population as a whole”?