And So It Begins Saturday, Jan 24 2009 

Abortion Nicholas Nugent 1:33 pm

Obama lifts restrictions on abortion funding

Oh, I’m sorry, all you evangelical Christians who voted for Obama.  I’m sorry, Rick Warren.  What did you think was going to happen?  Did you think Obama really cared about you?  Did you think he really did want to find common ground with you?  You were all had.

Your effort to show how “relevant” and modern you are worked.  You now look like everyone else.  Congratulations.  All it cost was a few million defenseless lives, in whose murders you are now complicit.  Well done.

 

Well, That Didn’t Take Long Tuesday, Jan 20 2009 

Abortion and Politics Nicholas Nugent 1:02 am

In my last post, published not five hours ago, I wrote,

Barack Obama will likely not think twice about committing your and my federal tax dollars to subsidizing abortion, in essence putting a government stamp of approval on the act.

And now, we hear from CNN.

Obama may use the occasion [of the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade on January 22nd, 2009] to reverse the “Mexico City policy” reinstated in 2001 by Bush that prohibits U.S. money from funding international family planning groups that promote abortion or provide information, counseling or referrals about abortion services.

As this man knocks down obstacle after obstacle to abortion-on-demand, forces U.S. citizens to subsidize an act they find abhorrent, and even perhaps further takes us down the road to infanticide, as I expect him to do in his presidency, I wonder how many of the allegedly “pro-life” secularists and evangelical Christians will start to feel remorse for giving themselves over to charisma and feel-good sentimentality at the expense of innocent human lives.  As I stated in my last post, we should all be ashamed of ourselves.

 

Not My President Monday, Jan 19 2009 

Abortion and Politics Nicholas Nugent 8:45 pm

There’s an old saying that if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.  I can certainly understand the impetus behind that statement.  No one likes to feel like a loser, and most people generally prefer to avoid conflict.  What better solution than to join the winner?  All conflict, gone.  The pain of defeat, suddenly turned to the joy of victory.  As a relative who is a classic fair-weather fan with respect to sports teams once quipped, “Every season a winning season!”  The appeal to join ‘em is present.  The appeal is acute.

But I refuse to join in the celebration surrounding Obama’s installment as our 44th President.  I won’t do it.  No matter how articulate he may be, no matter how much of an effective President he may (or may not) be, and no matter how helpful it may be to racial harmony in this country to elect a Present of African descent, none of these things changes the foundational and unavoidable fact that Barack Obama not only supports abortion, but supports abortion-on-demand.  None of these things changes the fact that Barack Obama will almost certainly appoint Justices to the Supreme Court and judges to the lower federal courts who will strike down as “unconstitutional” the slightest attempts to hinder unfettered abortion.  Barack Obama will likely not think twice about committing your and my federal tax dollars to subsidizing abortion, in essence putting a government stamp of approval on the act.  Barack Obama will likely roll over in appeasing unions, such as teachers unions, that monetarily support Planned Parenthood using member dues.  None of this is exaggeration.  And I haven’t even begun discussing infanticide.

So, no.  I will never call Barack Obama “my President.”  I will never be proud that our country has elected him.  Rather, I am ashamed of what our country has done.  I am saddened that the naïve buzz and excitement of “change,” “hope,” and a U2 concert is enough to drown out the already silent screams of those who are daily dismembered in their mothers’ wombs.  We should all be ashamed of ourselves.

 

Sure It’s Murder, But What About the Environment? Friday, Dec 19 2008 

Abortion Nicholas Nugent 10:55 pm

By now, we’ve all heard the news that evangelical Christian mega-pastor Rick Warren will speak and pray at Barack Obama’s inauguration.  At first, I was outraged.  How could a man who calls himself “pro-life” bless a man who was content to let undesired babies die if they should be so lucky as to survive the abortion attempt on their lives?  Warren’s response to this very criticism is that (predictably) while he disagrees with Obama on abortion, he agrees with him on many other issues and social causes.  I suppose it goes without saying that I cannot even begin to contemplate any current issue the moral importance of which could overbalance the atrocity of Obama’s disdain for human dignity – hence my originally-drafted, snarky title to this post.

But for now, I’ve decided to reserve judgment and hold my outrage in abeyance . . . for now.  Back in August, when Warren hosted Senators McCain and Obama at the Saddleback forum, it was billed as a congenial, non-confrontational discussion on faith and other related issues that wouldn’t go into such divisive topics as abortion.  I about blew a gasket when I heard that.  As my wife can attest, I almost ruined that day of our Cocoa Beach vacation, just seething with anger and disgust at Warren.  I was furious that because Warren wouldn’t confront him on that so basic of an issue, many millions of Christians who find guidance in Warren would likewise dismiss abortion as an issue that needn’t be central to their faith, thus diluting the strength of one of the strongest pro-life coalitions in the country.

Yet, Warren shocked me, and perhaps shocked many others, when he did in fact bring up abortion.  Although I suppose his posturing of the question – e.g., “I know this is a very complex issue . . . ” – left a lot to be desired in terms of articulating a firm stance, I was pleased that he at least had the guts to broach the issue.  I wondered if he actually broke protocol or broke the agreed upon terms of the forum by asking the question.  I mean, the news stations must have gotten the information from somewhere that there would be no talk of abortion.  In other words, Warren surprised me, and perhaps he surprised Obama, too.

So, for now, I’m going to give Warren the benefit of the doubt.  I guess I’m hoping he’ll surprise us all by doing something crazy – something like laying hands on Obama and asking God to use him to protect the defenseless, including the defenseless unborn.  Wow, what a powerful statement that would be to the watching country.  Will Warren actually do something like that?  Probably not.  But I can at least hope so; I suppose I can wait until he actually commits the crime before I hold him guilty in the court of my estimation.  Let’s wait and see.

 

What Will the Mormons Do Now? Tuesday, Dec 16 2008 

Abortion , , Nicholas Nugent 1:19 pm

Instrumental in the success of California’s Proposition 8 (thus overturning gay marriage in California) was the Mormon Church.  The Mormon Church launched an aggressive and well-organized campaign to effect Prop. 8’s passage, urging Mormons across the country to contribute money.  As a result, the Mormon Church was able to infuse more than $20 million into the Yes-on-8 campaign.  And, as Barack Obama’s election confirms, an enormous war chest is often the lifeblood of a successful campaign (although, the large black turnout for Obama also played a major, albeit unexpected, role in the success of Prop. 8, as black voters voted overwhelmingly in favor of restricting marriage to the traditional definition).

Not surprisingly, the Mormon Church is now facing a backlash for its successful efforts.

Protesters have massed outside Mormon temples nationwide. For every donation to a fund to overturn Proposition 8, a postcard is sent to the president of the Mormon Church. Supporters of gay marriage have proposed a boycott of Utah businesses, and someone burned a Book of Mormon outside a temple near Denver.

So, here’s the question du jour: What will the Mormons do now?  As a result of a history of persecution and a general consensus among Christian denominations that Mormonism does not qualify as a “Christian” religion, the Mormon Church seems to define itself primarily in terms of persecution today.  For years, it has steadfastly maintained an aggressive PR campaign to brand itself as a wholesome, family-oriented, traditional Christian religion.  Outside of mainstream Protestant denominations, the Mormon Church has also marketed itself to the non-religious through extensive social outreach programs, such as an admirable relief effort following Hurricane Katrina.

Thus, the Mormon Church has made, and continues to make, a concerted effort to make itself palatable and attractive to non-Mormons.  What the Mormon Church has generally not done, in my opinion, is to take strong positions on social issues (outside of the rules promulgated for its own members), which inevitably causes friction with those who hold opposing positions on such issues.   For instance, although I’ve seen it from evangelical Christians, I’ve never seen an abstinence-only campaign waged by the Mormon Church.

But the Proposition 8 effort marks a departure from this pattern of behavior, and, frankly, I was rather surprised to see it.  The Mormon Church took on the contentious issue of gay marriage and pushed for the abolition thereof.  The result?  A burning rage and vitriol at the Mormons the likes of which I thought were reserved for evangelical Christians and oil companies.  This backlash has caused some Mormons to question whether it was one huge mistake to get involved in Proposition 8 in the first place.  I suppose the thinking goes:  Here, we had been making such progress in making our religion acceptable to non-Mormons, so why on earth would we want to squander the goodwill we’ve built up by pissing off millions?

I return to the question that is the subject of this post: What will the Mormons do now?  Will they continue to take strong stands on issues they believe are important?  Or will the threat of renewed persecution, which they have fought so hard to be free of, prove too high a price to pay?

Now, this blog is concerned solely with abortion, and therefore my point is not to get into the gay marriage issue at all.  My only reason for discussing it is that, because Mormons are generally and canonically pro-life, I suspect that whatever the strength and future of their anti-gay marriage stance, so also will be the strength and future of their pro-life stance.  That is my concern.

So, perhaps it’s time to change the question.  Mormons: what will you do now?  What is more important to you, standing up for the innocent and defenseless victims of abortion, or making yourselves acceptable to the ones who support the killing?  Here’s hoping against hope the answer is the former.

 

Thanks for Your Patience Monday, Dec 15 2008 

Blog Administration Nicholas Nugent 1:33 pm

Dear readers, thank you for your patience in spite of my long period of inactivity.  Although I have been beyond busy with my job, recent comments have reminded me how important it is to continue to speak out against the evils of abortion.  As a result, I will do my best to get back on the wagon and craft posts as frequently as I am able.

Nick

 

Glimmer of Hope? Wednesday, Nov 5 2008 

Abortion and Politics Nicholas Nugent 9:07 pm

One possible glimmer of hope in an otherwise depressing election is that, contrary to the national trend, Republicans actually gained seats in the Tennessee state legislature.  The GOP now has majorities in both houses for the first time in 100 years, according to Instapundit (hat tip to the same).  This may very well allow Republicans to pass abortion restrictions that have otherwise eluded them over the years.

For example, Tennessee Republicans have repeatedly failed to pass a resolution calling for a public referendum to overturn the Tennessee Supreme Court’s Roe-analog in Planned Parenthood of Middle Tennessee v. Sundquist.  Perhaps that referendum is not so far off now.  We shall see.

Republicans have likewise gained control of the Oklahoma Senate for the first time ever.  One hopes similar measures may follow.

 

Sad Day Wednesday, Nov 5 2008 

Abortion and Politics and Proposed Legislation Nicholas Nugent 8:44 pm

Well, we knew it was more likely than not.  Barack Obama, the man who rose to power while voting to deny medical care to infants born alive as the result of botched abortions, the man who promised Planned Parenthood that his first act as president would be to sign the “Freedom of Choice Act,” thereby attempting to wipe out most abortion restrictions, the man who opposed restrictions on partial-birth abortion, will soon be the next president of the united states.  This is certainly a sad day.

It is also a sad day because all three anti-abortion ballot initiatives failed, dealing yet another blow to the pro-life cause.  Sad day indeed.

 

Standing is Standing Monday, Oct 27 2008 

Constitutional Law and Politics , Nicholas Nugent 9:38 pm

Since, everyone reads Drudge, I’m not exactly engaging in breaking news by posting this link: Judge tosses lawsuit challenging Obama citizenship.

Like many, I’m sure, I paid some attention to the Obama-is-not-a-natural-born-citizen conspiracy theory, and hoped (while 95% skeptical) that it was true.  Provided it was by legal and ethical means, I was cheering anything that could keep this guy from office, because of his stance on abortion.  But when I heard about the Berg lawsuit challenging his qualifications for office, I immediately wondered how the plaintiff would be able to show standing.  Well, despite my great desire to keep Barack Obama from office, I’ll be the first to admit that the federal court was correct in dismissing the suit.

Under the constitutional requirements for justiciability, in order to have standing to bring suit, a plaintiff must allege (1) an injury that was (2) caused by the defendant’s conduct and (3) for which the court could provide a remedy should it find favorably for the plaintiff.  In addition to these constitutional requirements, the Supreme Court has also articulated a number of prudential requirements, such as that the plaintiff may not assert the rights of others (no “third-party standing”) nor an injury that amounts to a “generalized grievance” shared by all or a large class of citizens.  The “generalized grievance” bar to standing essentially relegates certain matters, for which just about any citizen could allege injury, to the representative branches, where they more properly belong.  For instance, without the “generalized grievance” bar, an objector to the Iraq War could bring suit to challenge the war, alleging an injury in the form of his tax dollars being used to fund what he believes to be an illegal war.  And because any governmental action will involve the expenditure of tax dollars, this would ultimately allow any citizen to bring suit for any governmental action, making the courts arbiters of all governmental decisions, clearly not the design of the Constitution.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed Berg’s lawsuit for precisely this reason – namely, that he asserted only a generalized grievance shared by all voters alike who opposed Barack Obama’s candidacy and potential election as President (you can read Judge Surrick’s well-written memorandum and order here).  Does this mean that if, say, there were more solid evidence of Obama’s nonconformity with Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution, that no one could challenge his eligibility for office?  Well, no.  Often, when a case is dismissed under the “generalized grievance” bar, it is an implicit recognition that there is a better plaintiff out there, one who could assert an injury in a more personal, tangible manner.  Who would such a plaintiff be in this case?  John McCain, of course.  So, why hasn’t McCain himself brought such a suit, since he would be far more likely to establish standing?  Probably because, like most conspiracy theories, this one’s a loser.  Oh well.

 

The Abortion Missionaries Sunday, Oct 26 2008 

Abortion and International and Subsidization Nicholas Nugent 11:07 pm

[Sorry for the long delay.  Work's been busy lately]

According to The Telegraph, the Dutch “Women on Waves” abortion boat recently docked in Valencia, Spain, where, like modern enlightened missionaries to the backward, superstitious savages, the Dutch “charity” brought abortions to women who otherwise would not receive them under stricter Spanish abortion law.

The boat, run by the Dutch charity Women on Waves, docked in the southeastern port of Valencia on Thursday night, where it will shuttle women seeking abortions 12 miles out to sea in order to escape Spanish jurisdiction and perform the procedure.

The four-day mission is supported by more than 30 Spanish organisations, which hope it will serve to highlight the need for a reform of Spain’s abortion laws.

On Friday morning three women seeking terminations – all less than seven weeks pregnant – boarded the yacht “Menina” and were taken out into international waters before being given an abortion pill.

The article, in my opinion, reinforces three things I have observed about abortion in general, and about the pro-abortion movement in particular.  First, pro-choicers like to point out the fact that the international trend has, and continues to be, toward a more liberal abortion policy.  As poorer and less developed countries progress and modernize, they are more likely to end up legalizing abortion, not the reverse.  Therefore, they contend, a liberal abortion policy is indicative of progress and modernization.

Well, they are correct in that countries’ abortion laws almost inevitably become more liberal over time, and almost never more restrictive.  What they fail to mention, however, is the role already-”developed” countries play in aggressively pushing such a pro-abortion agenda on these developing countries, as well as other more developed countries.

A few examples come to mind: See, e.g., the following articles:

The “Women on Waves” project epitomizes this push.  It is not enough for the Dutch to have the liberal abortion policy it has.  No, they must insert themselves into Spanish policy in order to “highlight the need for a reform of Spain’s abortion laws.”  This, in my mind, cuts, at least in part, against the argument that liberalizing abortion is synonymous with progress.  If less developed countries are required to change their abortion law as a condition of accepting aid, or if more developed countries are subject to similar pressure through campaigns such as this, then the fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc seems pertinent.

Second, the article reinforces the observation that, often, the aim of abortion proponents is not simply to remove governmental abortion restrictions, but to cause the government to actively promote abortion.  Observe the statements of this Spanish gynecologist, quoted in the article:

“Women who want an abortion should be given one without them having to pay for it or seek medical permission,” said Spanish gynaecologist Josep Lluis Carbonell. “We are fighting for a woman’s right to choose and for the same respect to be given to her in Spain as it is already across Europe.”

For many pro-choicers, it is simply not enough that women be given almost carte blanche to abort; moral objectors must also be forced to pay for the murders they find so reprehensible through tax-subsidized abortion.  That should be a cause of grave concern should Barack Obama be elected President.  Assuming, for the sake of argument, that there would be no change in abortion law under an Obama presidency vs. a McCain presidency (e.g., that Roe would not be overturned even by McCain appointees to the Supreme Court), there would still be one major difference between the administrations of the two men.  Under Obama, it is far more likely that federal dollars would be used to subsidize abortion, which would mean our forced subsidization of an act we find abhorrent and murderous.

Finally, despite Spain’s relatively strict exceptions for legal abortion -

Legal terminations are only allowed until the 12th week of pregnancy in cases of rape or until the 22nd week in cases of severe foetal malformation.  But there is no time limit on abortions if there is a risk to the mother’s physical or mental health.

- the “mental health” exception turns out to be, once again, the exception that swallows the rule:

Over the last decade the number of abortions performed in Spain has doubled to 100,000 a year.The vast majority of those are carried out in private clinics after determining an alleged risk to the mother’s mental health, something that opponents say is a blatant abuse of the law.

I recall Obama’s statement defending the mental health exception in which he stated that it is a caricurature to assume that women would get an abortion simply because they had a “bad hair day.”  Obama is, of course, correct.  Women don’t procure abortions simply because they feel blue; many women procure abortions because they simply don’t want that inconvenient life, and purporting “feeling blue” is the legal loophole that allows it.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »