Tag Archives: abortion

medical news, political news

Do as he says, not does, on abortion

Here’s an item that might cause you to rethink your view of the world’s most glaring example of political hypocrisy.

U.S. Rep. Scott DesJarlais, R-Tenn., once was a physician in his hometown of Jasper, Tenn. He was married to a woman who obtained two abortions, reportedly on Dr. DesJarlais’s advice and counsel.

Then the congressman, who’s served in the House since 2011, voted “yes” on a bill that makes it illegal in this country for women to have an abortion after the 20-week period of their pregnancy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/05/16/congressman-who-advised-ex-wife-to-seek-abortion-votes-for-late-term-abortion-ban/?tid=sm_tw

His staff calls him “100-percent pro-life” and said his congressional voting record reflects that view.

Fine.

The congressman’s spokesman said he’s “always advocated for pro-life values.”

Always? Even when he counseled his wife to obtain an abortion? The spokesman didn’t say whether either abortion occurred after the 20th week of pregnancy.

This dichotomy cuts to the heart of why this particular issue is so troublesome for so many Americans. It’s one thing to pontificate from positions of power — such as from Capitol Hill — about what people should do when faced with these most emotionally charged decisions. It’s quite another when you’re faced with making them yourself or when asked to provide guidance for those with whom you are closest.

The Washington Post story attached to this blog post also notes that divorce papers released during DesJarlais’s re-election campaign in 2012 showed he had multiple affairs with patients, co-workers and drug company representatives while he was practicing medicine. Voters in his House district re-elected him anyway — twice, in fact.

Lawmakers’ lives are open books. They make laws that we all must follow and it’s fair to inquire about the background of those who cast these important votes — even when they reveal the harsh reality that some of them don’t always live by the values they preach to others.

entertainment news, legal news

Great work, judge, if you can get it

This thought didn’t originate with me. It comes from my friend Jon Mark Beilue, a columnist for the Amarillo Globe-News, who took note of something he saw.

I’m passing it along here.

It is that Judy Scheindlin, aka Judge Judy, I going to rake in tens of millions of dollars annually dispensing “justice” on television.

http://www.tvguide.com/news/judge-judy-contract-2020/

Judge Judy has been given a contract extension that will pay her an undisclosed amount of money through 2020. If history is a guide, it’s going to be for lots and lots of money.

Her Honor earned $47 million in 2014.

As Jon Mark noted in his social media post, the chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, John Roberts, earns about $225,000 annually. All he and his eight colleagues on the highest court in the land do for a living is determine whether federal laws comport with the U.S. Constitution. They get to decide things like, oh, the fate of the Affordable Care Act, whether someone deserves to be executed for crimes they commit or whether abortion remains legal.

Judge Judy? She gets to scold people for not making good on fender-bender accident claims, or shaving their neighbor’s pet dog or cat, or absconding with a refrigerator load of food. It’s that kind of thing that Judge Judy gets to hear.

For that she earns millions.

As Jon Mark noted: Only in America …

 

national news, political news

GOP men vs. GOP women on abortion

The men who run the Republican Party caucus on Capitol Hill are facing a determined foe.

They happen to be the women who comprise the rank and file of GOP legislators.

The battleground? It’s abortion. Men of the GOP? You’re in for a fight.

You go, ladies.

Abortion dissenters face backlash

Female Republican House members are rising up against anti-abortion legislation that would stop abortions at the 20-week mark of a pregnancy. The legislation contains language about rape and suggests that even women who become pregnant as a result of a savage sexual assault must carry the pregnancy to full term. The provision in the bill required that women who are raped had to report the incident to police to be exempted from the 20-week rule. Some Republican moderate women said as many as 70 percent of rapes go unreported by women.

This is what happens when men — who know not a single thing about some of these intensely personal issues — make laws affecting women.

Congress intended to pass this legislation out on the 42nd anniversary of the historic Roe vs. Wade decision in the Supreme Court that stated the Constitution protects a woman’s right to end a pregnancy.

Conservatives are angry over the GOP moderates’ torpedoing of the legislation. Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, said the women will be “held accountable.”

Baloney.

They’ve acted responsibly and their voices need to be heard on this issue that only they understand.

 

medical news

Abortion bill: a non-starter

1 Comment

Let’s just put this one on ice: Abortion is not going to be one of those issues where the White House and Congress are going to compromise.

President Obama will veto House Resolution 36 if it ever gets to his desk.

Let’s hope it doesn’t get there.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/obama-threatens-to-veto-new-gop-abortion-bill-20150120

The bill, cobbled together by Republicans who themselves are split on this issue, would prohibit abortions 20 weeks after fertilization.

Yep. That’s it.

Never mind that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a woman has a constitutional right to choose whether to end a pregnancy. Or that most Americans favor granting women the opportunity to decide such matters. Thus, abortion remains legal. The rate of abortion also happens to be declining.

None of that matters. Republicans who control Congress say two things: They oppose government “interference” but they demand that government interfere in this most personal and intensely emotional decision possible.

The National Journal reports: “Republicans themselves are divided on the bill, which is sponsored by Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz. At last week’s GOP retreat, Rep. Renee Ellmers, R-N.C., called on House leadership not to bring up the bill this week, saying that the caucus needs ‘to be smart about how we’re moving forward.'”

It’s not smart to approve a bill they know will get a veto and which will not be overridden. It’s also not smart to tell a woman that she must take a pregnancy to full term. That is her call to make — exclusively.

 

 

 

national news, political news, Uncategorized

Mitt now aims to fight poverty

Chris Matthews is loud, abrasive and occasionally rude on his TV talk show.

He’s also smart, shrewd and insightful when he delivers political commentary.

Matthews cannot believe that Mitt Romney can run for president a third time as an advocate for poor Americans, noting that in 2012 Romney was a champion for the “1 percent” of richest Americans while saying that the 47 percent, the poor folks, “are takers.”

http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/watch/romney-to-focus-on-fighting-poverty-383924291861?CID=SM_FB

He wonders how Mitt can change his tune so dramatically and rapidly from his previous presidential campaign and get away with it. Will it sell to voters who remember the self-deportation talk, the spontaneous offer to wager a $10,000 bet with Rick Perry, references to “the illegals”?

I’ve got a name for Matthews to ponder: George H.W. Bush.

Let’s flash back to 1980. Former Gov. Ronald Reagan had sewn up the Republican presidential nomination. He began looking around for a running mate. He toyed with the idea of picking former President Ford to be on his ticket; the former president said “no.” Then he turned to George Bush, who ran against Reagan in the GOP primaries.

One little problem, though. Bush was a noted supporter of organizations such as Planned Parenthood. He voted routinely, while a member of Congress in the 1960s, for legislation that funded contraception and other family planning programs. His nickname in the House of Representatives was “Rubbers.”

But the GOP nominee in 1980 needed to run on a strong pro-life platform. Would “Rubbers” agree to switch his view on abortion if he ran? You bet he would. And he did.

George Bush took the phone call from Ronald Reagan. He got the offer to run. He said “yes,” and transformed immediately — as in right then and there — from a pro-choice Republican to a pro-life Republican.

The Reagan-Bush ticket won in a historic landslide.

Can Mitt make a similar switcheroo? Absolutely.

 

medical news, national news

Assisted suicide causes serious conflict

1 Comment

Some social, moral and theological issues are clear to me.

Women have the right to choose whether to end a pregnancy; homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, but is predetermined by one’s genetic code; God created the world, but didn’t do it in six calendar days. Those are my views, for better or worse.

Assisted suicide? Oh, brother. Someone pass the Pepto.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/terminally-ill-brittany-maynard-takes-her-own-life/ar-BBcEQgq

Brittany Maynard took her own life over the weekend in Oregon, my home state, which also allows for assisted suicide. She had suffered from terminal brain cancer. Doctors said she had no hope of surviving. She was left with two choices: die a slow, agonizing death and subject her loved ones to untold misery or take her life peacefully, quickly and clinically.

She’s now gone.

The debate rages on.

I’ve long struggled with whether human beings should be entrusted to do God’s work, to determine whether someone should live or die. The issue confuses and confounds me.

I get Brittany’s struggle. I understand fully her desire to spare her family such untold agony. I also try to understand the family’s desire to spare her the pain and agony that surely awaited her.

Then I ask myself: Would I want (a) to end my life or (b) allow a member of my family to make that decision?

The answer is “no” to both parts of that question.

But then I come back to what Brittany Maynard and her family wanted. Is it up to me or anyone else to make that decision for them? No. It’s their call exclusively.

Come to think of it, I might have persuaded myself that assisted suicide is one of those issues that only can be decided by those affected directly by it. The rest of us have no business determining someone’s fate.

The issue, however, still upsets my stomach.

 

political news, State news

'In support of abortion'? Hardly

The campaign for Texas governor is heading down the stretch and some state newspapers are weighing in with their editorial endorsements.

To no one’s surprise, near as I can tell, my local paper — the Amarillo Globe-News — is backing Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott. That’s their call and they’re certainly entitled to make it.

But there is a single phrase in the Sunday editorial that needs some, um, clarification. I will attempt to provide it here.

The fourth paragraph mentions Abbott’s experience as AG, state Supreme Court justice and his work as a “proven conservative.” Fine, so far — I guess. Then it goes on essentially to denigrate Abbott’s Democratic opponent, Wendy Davis, saying she is “best known for her marathon 2013 filibuster in the state Senate in support of abortion.”

Whoa!

In support of abortion?

Can we simplify this issue any more? Can we turn a topic for an intelligent discussion more graphically into a mere talking point?

This precisely is the kind of half-truth-telling bordering on demagoguery that launches me into orbit.

The bill that Davis filibustered — and which became law in a subsequent session of the Legislature — intended to put the brakes on a bill that would have limited women’s access to abortion if they so chose to obtain one. It does not “support” the procedure, as the editorial mentioned here implies. It intended to provide women the choice — which they deserve — in making arguably the most difficult decision any of them ever would have to make.

But no. Texas has turned “small-government conservatism” on its ear.

Conservatives claim to favor less-intrusive government — until it involves certain hot-button issues, such as abortion. Then they turn into big-government liberals, enacting laws that dictate to individuals how they should make decisions they rightfully should make in consultation with their own conscience, their loved ones, their physician or their faith.

The election is almost at hand. Abbott is favored to win the race for governor. Until then, may we discuss the candidates’ pluses and minuses with intelligence and avoid simple-minded slogans?

 

 

political news, State news

Watch for the response to Davis memoir

Texas is full of armchair political experts. You can call me one of them, as I’m liable to offer an opinion or two on occasion on how I see the state of play across the state’s enormous landscape.

A friend of mine is another one. He tilts the other direction. I lean left, he leans right.

A recent blog post I published wondered aloud about the possible political impact that Democratic state Sen. Wendy Davis’s revelation that she ended a pregnancy would have on her bid to become the state’s next governor. My friend responded that it wouldn’t budge her “dismal” poll numbers. She’ll still lose to Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott, my friend believes.

I agree that the news by itself isn’t likely to budge the numbers in Davis’s favor. Abbott remains a solid favorite to win the gubernatorial election in November.

What could influence this race, however, is the response to her memoir, “Forgetting to Be Afraid,” and the item in it in which she reveals she aborted a pregnancy in the second trimester because she and her then-husband learned that their unborn daughter had a rare and potentially fatal brain disease.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/wendy-davis-ended-pregnancy-110659.html?hp=l17

Will her GOP opponent make hay over it? Probably not.

However, he has some zealous supporters across the state who just might try to make something of it. They just might seek to rub Davis’s face in the tragedy that darkened her life. They very well might want to resurrect the “Abortion Barbie” epithet that was attached to her after she led that legislative filibuster in 2013 that derailed temporarily a restrictive anti-abortion bill in the Texas Senate.

A lack of discretion on their part well might rouse some anger among those who otherwise would be inclined to vote for Abbott but who take issue with those who are beating up a political opponent over a decision that transcends politics. Indeed, that kind of personal tragedy ought to be out of bounds.

The more zealous among us — on both ends of the political spectrum — too often think everything is on the table. In the case involving Wendy Davis, acting on that instinct could blow up in their face.

 

Uncategorized

Abortion is personal for Wendy Davis

Wendy Davis has come clean on the issue that to date has defined her campaign for Texas governor.

The Democratic nominee for governor reveals in a memoir that she terminated a pregnancy. Why? Her unborn child had a potentially fatal brain disease so she and her then-husband made the heart-wrenching decision, during the second trimester of her pregnancy, to end it.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/wendy-davis-ended-pregnancy-110659.html?hp=f2

Her memoir, “Forgetting to be Afraid,” goes on sale next week.

It’s fair to wonder: What does this revelation to do her prospects for winning the Texas governorship?

She won’t win any Republican votes, to be sure. Her GOP opponent, Greg Abbott, already is a strong favorite to win the election in November. Will her acknowledging of this abortion galvanize pro-choice supporters to vote? Will her declaration be a testament to the courage it took for her to say it? I don’t know.

This kind of intensely personal crisis, though, does put Abbott in a bit of a bind.

The reasons Davis gives for aborting the pregnancy falls precisely into the circumstance that many anti-abortion activists and lawmakers are willing to exempt from laws that criminalize the act of receiving an abortion.

Did Davis and her husband seek this recourse with no regard to its consequence? Hardly. She writes that she felt a “deep, dark despair and grief, a heavy wave that crushed me, that made me wonder if I ever would surface.” She writes that she did recover emotionally and emerged someone who was changed forever.

Is this the kind of thing Abbott and/or his campaign team wants to exploit? No. I am certain the state’s attorney general will stay away from this issue. His supporters, though, might not be so circumspect.

This is the kind of intensely personal decision that only a woman can make with those who she loves and with God Almighty — and any effort to demonize Wendy Davis could carry some serious political risk for those who start throwing stones.

 

 

political news, State news

Texas abortion fight takes key turn

A federal judge has ruled that a critical part of the Texas anti-abortion violates the U.S. Constitution.

Good for him.

The judge is Lee Yeakel, who presides over the U.S. District Court’s Western District of Texas. His ruling declares that a provision in the law that requires abortion clinics to meet the same standards as hospitals puts an unfair restriction on a woman’s right to obtain an abortion if she chooses.

Judge strikes down Texas abortion restrictions

Thus, the fight will continue. The state is certain to appeal this ruling. The leading candidate for governor, Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott, is a strong supporter of the law; his Democratic opponent, state Sen. Wendy Davis, rocketed to national political fame when she led a filibuster in 2013 to “kill” temporarily the bill that would become state law.

Yeakel ruled that the intent of the law was to close only existing licensed abortion clinics. The law, he said, goes too far in establishing the stricter standards on par with ambulatory surgical centers.

So, why the curious turn here?

Yeakel was appointed to the federal bench by Republican President George W. Bush, another strong anti-abortion politician.

I’m as certain as I’m sitting here that we’re going to hear comments from critics of the ruling declare their disgust with “unelected” federal judges overreaching and “writing laws from the bench.”

Again, this is the beauty — not the bane — of the federal judicial system. Judges aren’t beholden to their political benefactors, the politicians who select them for these lifetime jobs.

Abbott says he’ll appeal the ruling to the Fifth Circuit Court in New Orleans, where he thinks he’ll get it overturned.

Would those judges be overreaching and writing laws from the bench?