The New No On 48 Sign

Some jerk stole my "No on 48" yard sign. But it wasn't a very good sign, anyway; I had to cut out the part that said, "It Simply Goes Too Far."

Now I've made a new sign that actually contains some substantive information:



To use this sign, you need merely download the pdf file, print out the two pages, and protect them from the elements with plastic or glass. And, when somebody steals your sign, you can just print out another one!

Reply to Kristi Burton on Amendment 48

On September 19, the Pagosa Daily Post published an op/ed by Kristi Burton favoring Amendment 48, which would define a fertilized egg as a person in Colorado's Constitution. Today The Denver Post published the same piece.

The Pagosa paper published my reply on September 23. Given the wide distribution of Burton's article via the Post, my reply is timely:

Amendment 48 Smoke Screen

Ari Armstrong

Kristi Burton tries to hide Amendment 48 behind a cloud of smoke in her September 19 Post opinion article. The measure would define a fertilized egg as a person in Colorado's constitution.

Burton's claim that Amendment 48 "doesn't change the constitution in any way" is dishonest. It would add a new section to the state constitution:

"As used in sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the terms 'person' or 'persons' shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization."

The related provisions pertain to the rights to life, liberty, equality of justice, and due process of law.

The constitution guides interpretation of statutes. For example, existing statutes define first-degree murder as deliberately causing the death of a "person," resulting in life in prison or the death penalty. Burton has never indicated what criminal penalties she wants for abortion.

At least Burton acknowledges she wants to outlaw "abortion on demand." However, she does not admit the full legal ramifications of Amendment 48 if implemented. Women would be forced to carry to term pregnancies even in cases of rape, incest, and fetal deformity. Women suspected of purposely inducing a miscarriage might be subject to criminal investigation.

Burton claims, "Mothers also possess personhood and the amendment in no way endangers their well-being." However, if a fertilized egg is a person, then the life of a fertilized egg must be balanced against the life of the woman, with details to be decided by the courts.

Nor does Burton discuss the impact of Amendment 48 on birth control, fertility treatments, and medical research. The popular birth control pill and other types may prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. Fertility treatments help hundreds of Colorado women become pregnant every year, but those treatments regularly involve the destruction or freezing of fertilized eggs. Amendment 48 would ban those forms of birth control and fertility treatments.

The facts are these: a fertilized egg, as it develops into an embryo and fetus, is wholly contained within the woman's body and completely dependent on the woman's body for sustenance. This is radically different from a born child, which, while still very needy, can eat and breathe using its own organs and leave its mother to be cared for by somebody else. Thus, personhood begins at birth. A pregnant woman has the right to liberty, including the right to get an abortion.

The same facts show Burton is also wrong in tying abortion to "taking away the lives and dignity of the elderly, sick and disabled." While a fertilized egg is not a person, the elderly, sick, and disabled are people.

Burton rightly criticizes the view that "each person decides" when personhood begins. That is why Burton is wrong to arbitrarily declare that a fertilized egg is a person, when the biological facts show otherwise.

For a more detailed description of the harms of the measure, see "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life" at the Secular Government website.

The Post also published a piece by L. Indra Lusero and Lynn M. Paltrow critical of the measure. They offer two concrete examples:

For example, in Washington, D.C., doctors sought a court order to force Ayesha Madyun to have a C-section, claiming the fetus faced a 50 to 75 percent chance of infection if not delivered surgically. The court said, "All that stood between the Madyun fetus and its independent existence, separate from its mother, was -- put simply -- a doctor's scalpel." With that, the court granted the order. When the procedure was done, there was no evidence of infection.

In Florida, Laura Pemberton wanted to have a vaginal birth after a previous C-section. Her doctors believed that her fetus had a right to be born by a C-section. A sheriff came to her house, took her into custody while she was in active labor, strapped her legs together and forced her to go to a hospital, where they were holding a hearing about the rights of the fetus. A lawyer was appointed for her fetus but not for her. She was forced to have a C-section. Pemberton subsequently gave birth vaginally to four more children, defying the medical and court predictions of harm.

On September 23, the Rocky Mountain News also published a good letter by Dr. Thomas W. Moffatt opposed to Amendment 48:

As a Catholic and retired pro-life obstetrician, I am very concerned about Amendment 48. I am concerned, in a pluralistic, democratic society, about imposing my religious beliefs on another. There is, then, nothing to stop others from imposing their beliefs on me. But from a purely medical and pro-life point of view, how can I impose my beliefs on another to the point that women can and will die?

I have been faced with situations in my years of practice in which I had to decide if one person or two would die. Two prime examples are ectopic - or tubal - pregnancies, and infected pregnancies. Must we now allow a woman to die if she is hemorrhaging from a ruptured fallopian tube? Should both the mother and child die in the case of an infected pregnancy, which often, sadly, occurs in the middle trimester?

Will a physician, in saving a woman's life, be subject to criminal prosecution? We know some prosecutor will, eventually, try to make a name for himself by charging a physician with manslaughter or worse.

Amendment 48 must be defeated, along with its possible future stepchildren.

Sarah Palin and the Witch Hunter

A few days ago, I reviewed the connection between Sarah Palin and Pastor Thomas Muthee, who made a name for himself by running a "witch" out of a Kenyan town.

Now it is clear that, when Palin praised Muthee in June, 2008, she already knew that Muthee took seriously the alleged evils of "witchcraft." As an Associated Press story points out (and see also the related video linked by the same Rocky Mountain News page) in May, 2005, Muthee prayed over Palin, asking God to grant her political success and to protect her from "every form of witchcraft."

Aside from indicating the sorts of people Palin thanks for her political success, the story has at least two other interesting angles.

First, notice how some right wingers are invoking cultural relativism to defend Palin. For example, "Mike846" writes in the comments beneath the story as presented by the Rocky: "You can bet if a witch doctor in Africa had blessed Obama in some tribal ceremony during his visit there, it would have been hailed as a display of his 'tolerance and understanding' of cultural differences in the world." So, by comparison, apparently we're supposed to think well of a man who drove a woman for her home because of her alleged witchcraft, because of the man's quaint "cultural differences." Wow.

Second, Palin's ties to religious crazies may neutralize McCain's attack on Jeremiah Wright. I had assumed that McCain, or his supporters, would start running Wright-Obama ads right before the election. I figured this would have been an effective strategy. But now that doesn't seem like such an effective line of attack.

I keep changing my mind about who's more likely to win the election. I'm not voting for either, and the prospect of either man winning frightens me. However, it seems increasingly likely to me that, as I've argued, Palin will scare away the freedom-minded independents and secular Republicans McCain needs to win the Interior West.

Abortion Warning from South Dakota

I have been warning about the problem of capitulating to the Amendment 48 crowd. The Washington Post reveals what can happen when defenders of abortion rights refuse to fight for their principles.

The paper reports:

For the second time since 2006, South Dakota voters are being asked to outlaw almost all abortions. A ballot initiative called Initiated Measure 11 would ban the procedure except in cases of rape, incest and a narrow interpretation of the health and life of the woman.

Voters rejected a more restrictive measure in 2006, but polls suggested that South Dakotans would have voted yes if it had included exceptions.

Because, some opponents argue, Amendment 48 "simply goes to far," I fear Colorado will soon face a similar measure that is still horrific in its implications but that doesn't go quite as far.

The Post discusses one reason why the South Dakota measure is bad:

Marvin Buehner, a pro-choice Rapid City doctor who specializes in high-risk pregnancies, said the law "would amount to a total ban."

"If there's a risk of a Class 4 felony if I don't meet the ambiguous standard of 'serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily organ or system,' there's no way I would consider doing an abortion for health reasons," Buehner said. "This represents incredible government interference in the practice of medicine."

Notably, some advocates of the measure explicitly say that God is behind the measure. Such faith-based politics has no place in a free country.

Ron Paul: 'Person' From Conception

A little over a year ago, Congressman Ron Paul, formerly a Libertarian and Republican presidential candidate, sponsored House Resolution 2597, which states that "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception" and that "the term 'person' shall include all human life" so defined. The proposal also states that "the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review" any measure that "protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth" or "prohibits, limits, or regulates... the performance of abortions."

In other words, Ron Paul wants not only to overturn Roe v. Wade but to outlaw all abortions.

For an explanation for why a fertilized egg is not a person, and why any legal doctrine based on the faith-based fantasy that it is promises legal chaos and grotesque violations of the rights of actual people, see "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life." Amendment 48 is Colorado's version of Paul's proposal.

I learned of 2597 indirectly from "Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty," on which Paul states he is "supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate," rather than Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate. I'd never heard of Baldwin, so I looked up his web page. There, he states:

I will use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to demand that Congress enact Dr. Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life Act which would set forth that every unborn child is a "person" under the Constitution, entitled to equal protection of the law and therefore, no unborn child could be killed without due process of law.

That pointed me to Paul's proposal. This just goes to show that many people pretending to advocate liberty are in fact its profound enemies.

Amendment 48 Updates

Diana Hsieh, who co-authored a paper with me titled, "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life," pointed out several articles relevant to the measure, which would define a fertilized egg as a person in Colorado's constitution.

The Denver Post published a fairly solid editorial against it. Unfortunately, the editorial includes this unfortunate argument: "While personal definitions of when life begins are varied, Amendment 48's definition doesn't fit with good science. Medical and scientific experts set the start of pregnancy at the point a fertilized egg attaches itself to the uterus."

It is true that Amendment 48 would grant rights to a fertilized egg even before it implants in the uterus, and that expands the harm of the measure if passed and implemented. However, by referring to "personal definitions of when life begins," the Post places the entire debate in the realm of subjectivism. (Besides, the only scientifically valid answer to the question of when life begins is "approximately four billion years ago," as life has been an uninterupted chain since. Both the egg and sperm are alive prior to fertilization. The relevant question is when personhood begins.)

Then the Post takes a pragmatist turn:

The debate over personhood was settled in 1973 by the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade decision on whether states could outlaw abortions. The court defined a fetus as a person if it developed into the third trimester and said states could not ban abortions of fetuses until that late stage in a pregnancy. The high court's definition works. Amendment 48's doesn't.

But what is the basis of the claim? Isn't the "third trimester" just another "personal definition," according to the Post? If one definition can have force of law, why can't another?

The advocates of Amendment 48 must be smiling. They never thought the measure would pass. What they wanted to do was advance their cause. They'll be quite happy to outlaw abortion in incremental steps. What they have accomplished with Amendment 48 is to define the end point, toward which most of their opponents have sprinted. The paper by Diana and me is a notable exception.

The Rocky Mountain News also published a pretty good editorial against the measure. The Rocky correctly describes the central purpose of the measure:

What Amendment 48 proponents would like to do, by their own admission, is outlaw all abortions. They can't do that by a state amendment, of course, so long as Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. And they know this. So Amendment 48 lays the foundation for outlawing abortions if Roe is ever overturned - assuming the measure is not struck down by the courts because of existing federal rulings.

The Rocky wonders whether the measure could "be used from the outset to regulate other areas, such as in vitro fertilization, stem cell research and even contraception." Certainly it could be so used if federal rules on abortion were removed.

But the Rocky thinks it implausible that Amendment 48 could trigger investigations into miscarriages or prevent women from obtaining medical treatment that "might harm a fertilized egg." Why are those concerns implausible? The Rocky offers no argument. While I doubt miscarriages would be routinely investigated, they would have to be if the measure were implemented and a miscarriage were deemed suspicious. For example, what if a woman's associate called the police claiming the woman induced a miscarriage by taking certain herbs or physical measures? If a fertilized egg is legally a person, such cases would have to become a criminal matter. Likewise, if a fertilized egg is a person, then the risks to the egg must be weighed against the risks to the woman. This scenario is not only plausible but logically necessitated.

Nobably, the Rocky approves of "some restrictions on abortion," but it doesn't specify which ones. Amendment 48 "attempts to go too far," says the Rocky -- but how far is far enough? Again, Amendment 48 has done precisely what its advocates must have anticipated: move the public debate in the direction of more government control.

What neither newspaper mentions are the relevant biological facts of pregnancy. From the moment of conception through the fetal stage, the embryo/fetus is wholly contained within the woman's body and wholly dependent upon her for sustenance. Thus, an embryo/fetus is radically different from a born child. For a more detailed argument, see the paper.

The Rocky also published three letters about abortion. Here is the argument by Paul Predecki:

The fetus in the womb is unquestionably (a) alive, (b) human, (c) unique (its DNA is different from that of either parent) and (d) totally innocent. ...

Certainly the baby is totally dependent on the mother, but we are all dependent on others to varying extents. Surely dependence should not justify termination.

Diana and I explain why Predecki's points do not imply personhood. And Predecki's conflation of the position of the fertilized egg with a generalized "dependence" is ridiculous. When I purchase a loaf of bread from a grocery store, that's hardly the same condition as being wholly contained within a woman's body.

Patricia Szott refers to an "unborn child," indicating the main line of attack of opponents of abortion: merely to assume that a fertilized egg is a person, without argument. That is because the foundation of the belief is rooted in religious faith, not reason.

Then Mayo McNeil quotes Genesis and Exodus to "refute" the view that a fertilized egg is a person. Put this in the hefty folder titled, "With Friends Like These..."

Now for some good news. As Diana blogs, the Illinois Appellate Court ruled that a fertilized egg is not a person. Hsieh cites the ACLU, which in turn cites Daily Kos. Here's a summary of the case:

The case involved an Illinois couple suing their fertility clinic for tens of thousands of dollars because the clinic inadvertently had destroyed unimplanted eggs stored at the facility. The lower court had accepted the argument that a human being is created when an egg is fertilized, regardless of whether the fertilized egg is implanted in a woman’s body or left in a Petri dish. Left undisturbed, the lower court’s decision could have limited the ability of women in Illinois to access contraceptive services and genetic testing. Moreover, the decision would curb the ability of couples in Illinois to use reproductive technologies, such as in vitro fertilization, in starting a family.

So there is some sense left in the world. But the rampant subjectivism and pragmatism of the left is slowly giving ground to those pressing for faith-based politics.

"A Spirit of Witchcraft"

I guess that since Sarah Palin is supposed to be the reincarnation of Ronald Reagan, it's appropriate that she's turning into a Teflon Vice-President. It seems that, no matter how kooky her background becomes, the conservatives will rally to her cause. Part of the problem is that some of the stuff is so bizarre it's hard to take seriously; it seems like an elaborate practical joke.

Keith Olbermann reviews Palin's comments about Pastor Thomas Muthee.

Hannah Strange reports for The Times:

The pastor whose prayer Sarah Palin says helped her to become governor of Alaska founded his ministry with a witchhunt against a Kenyan woman who he accused of causing car accidents through demonic spells.

At a speech at the Wasilla Assembly of God on June 8 this year, Mrs Palin described how Thomas Muthee had laid his hands on her when he visited the church as a guest preacher in late 2005, prior to her successful gubernatorial bid. ...

An African evangelist, Pastor Muthee has given guest sermons at the Wasilla Assembly of God on at least 10 occasions in his role as the founder of the Word of Faith Church, also known as the Prayer Cave. ...

"We prayed, we fasted, the Lord showed us a spirit of witchcraft resting over the place," Pastor Muthee says. ...

According to the Christian Science Monitor, six months of fervent prayer and research identified the source of the witchcraft as a local woman called Mama Jane, who ran a "divination" centre called the Emmanuel Clinic. ...

The "witch" eventually was run out of town.

Here's what the Christian Science Monitor has to say about Muthee:

In 1988, [Kenyan pastor Thomas Muthee] and his wife, Margaret, were "called by God to Kiambu," a notorious, violence-ridden suburb of Nairobi and a "ministry graveyard" for churches for years. They began six months of fervent prayer and research.

Pondering the message of Eph.6:12 ("For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world..."), they prayed to identify the source of Kiambu's spiritual oppression, Mr. Muthee says. Their answer: the spirit of witchcraft.

This election is increasingly a contest of the crazies. Certainly this is the most frightening election of my lifetime.

"A Task That Is From God"

Fox News points out that Sarah Palin did not claim that "Saddam Hussein helped Al Qaeda plan the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon," as The Washington Post reported. Fox also points out that Palin did not call the Iraq war a "holy war," as ABC News implied.

However, here's what Palin did say, as Fox reports:

Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan.

The McCain camp objected to ABC News's treatment of the quote:

"Governor Palin's full statement was VERY different" from the way Gibson characterized it," read a statement circulated by McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds.

"Gibson cut the quote -- where she was clearly asking for the church TO PRAY THAT IT IS a task from God, not asserting that it is a task from God.

"Palin's statement is an incredibly humble statement, a statement that this campaign stands by 100 percent, and a sentiment that any religious American will share," Bounds wrote.

Yet here it is Bounds who is performing the spin. The difference between saying that the Iraq war is "a task that is from God" and saying that we should pray that it is "a task that is from God" is pretty trivial. Palin clearly says that the war should be "God's plan." This gives a religious motivation to foreign policy, which should be grounded solely in the national defense of the United States.

Moreover, as I've pointed out, at the same event Palin also said she thought it was "God's will" that she help build an energy pipeline, and she added that political reform "doesn't do any good if the people of Alaska's heart isn't right with God."

Palin clearly made the case that politics must be fundamentally based on religion.

Palin and Abortion: Health Risks

Douglas Burns points to a 2006 story from the Associated Press regarding Sarah Palin's views on abortion:

The candidates were pressed on their stances on abortion and were even asked what they would do if their own daughters were raped and became pregnant.

Palin said she would support abortion only if the mother's life was in danger. When it came to her daughter, she said, "I would choose life."

The bit about rape is consistent with an account from Time:

Andrew Halcro, a noted Palin critic who ran against her as an independent in the governor's race... recalls one debate in October 2006 in which, after repeated questions about her opposition to abortion even in cases of rape or incest, she looked at the moderator with exasperation and asked if they were going to talk about anything besides abortion.

Previously I wrote that Palin "ardently opposes abortion... apparently even in cases of rape, incest, or health problems."

I still have not seen anything that clarifies Palin's views on abortion where health problems are concerned. Does she support legal abortion in any case regarding a health problem of the fetus? Presumably not, though I've not seen a clear statement on the matter.

She claims to support legal abortion "if the mother's life was in danger" (a paraphrase, not a direct quote), but that hardly helps. Rarely is it the case that doctors know absolutely that, if they don't remove and thereby kill the embryo or fetus, the woman certainly will die. Most cases are not so clear cut. An abortion may reduce health risks to the woman, though only some women in such cases would otherwise die. An abortion may also reduce physical harm to a woman who would not otherwise die. Where would Palin draw that line? Rational voters deserve an answer.

Don't Threaten Christians...

...especially armed ones. The Denver Post reports:

A man who came to the home of two women whom he had threatened to decapitate with a knife received a blow to the head that could cost him an eye, according to Colorado Springs police.

Russell Bowman, who claims to be an atheist, threatened the women because they are Christian on Sept. 8. On Friday, he arrived at their apartment and stood in a hallway, according to a police report.

"Another resident of the apartment retrieved a shotgun and approached Bowman, who was by then walking away. The resident ordered Bowman to put the knife down," according to the report.

Bowman refused and approached the resident, who hit him with the butt of the shotgun, injuring his eye.

I haven't seen the official statistics, but I imagine Christian beliefs correlate with gun ownership in the U.S., mostly because both correlate with rural living.

Of course there can be crazy Christians just as there can be crazy atheists. But there is an important distinction between the two: Christianity defines a set of positive beliefs, whereas atheism does not. Regardless, freedom of conscience, including freedom of religion, implies the right to be left in peace, regardless of your views, so long as you respect the rights of others.

Dishonor Killings Continue

NBC News reports:

By NBC News’ Shahid Qazi and Carol Grisanti

In a tangle of bushes and trees outside a remote village in southwest Pakistan, six close male relatives of three teenage girls dug a 4-foot wide by 6-foot deep ditch, on a sweltering night in mid-July, and allegedly buried the girls alive.

The girls' crime: they dared to defy the will of their fathers and the customs of their tribe and choose their own husbands. The mother of one of the girls and the aunt of another were shot and killed while begging for the girls’ lives, according to local media reports. ...

"This action was carried out according to tribal traditions," said Israrullah Zehri, a senator representing Balochistan in the upper house of Pakistan’s parliament in the capital Islamabad. "These are centuries-old traditions and I will continue to defend them," he said.

These murders in the name of "tradition" are a sickening reminder of the widespread cultural barbarism altogether too prevalent in and surrounding the Middle East. Note that this is not merely vigilante injustice; it is sanctioned and endorsed by the "government."

When will we see the Muslim world rise up against such horrific crimes with a tenth, with a hundredth, of the intensity that it rises up for censorship of cartoons?

Burton's Campaign of Obfuscation

Kristi Burton, sponsor of Amendment 48, which would define a fertilized egg as a person in Colorado's constitution, intentionally obfuscates the facts of the measure.

Burton told the Rocky Mountain News, "They [critics] are missing the core issue of when life begins. That is what this is trying to establish."

Baloney.

Amendment 48 does not say, "Life begins with conception." As Diana Hsieh and I review in our paper, the measure states, "As used in sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the terms 'person' or 'persons' shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization." Diana and I point out the implications of the measure at length. Moreover, Buron's comment is factually wrong, as the paper points out.

Diana and I discuss the nature of personhood at some length and explain why a fertilized egg does not qualify. Perhaps Burton would care to reply to those arguments rather than repeat her platitudes.

A September 9 story from the Rocky quotes more of Burton's views as expressed on KBDI-Channel 12:

Why this amendment is needed: "It recognizes the advances in modern medical science, which tell us that human life really does begin at the moment of conception. At that moment we have unique DNA that makes this a truly unique individual. Amendment 48 empowers the citizens of Colorado to take this issue into their own hands and to direct the elected officials and judges on how important life decisions should be made."

Details, such as the legal status of fertilized eggs in test tubes, can be addressed later: "What this amendment does is, it provides a common-sense starting point. Before we can deal with issues like that or the ones that they talk of -- birth control and in vitro fertilization -- those are issues that will be dealt with later on in the democratic process. Before we can do that, we first of all have to lay a foundation."

The amendment values life: "We can all agree that life has been cheapened in our society... People, especially in my generation, are tired of that. We want to restore value to human life and say that every person truly counts."

At least here Burton makes a slightly more sophisticated argument regarding unique DNA. However, unique DNA does not qualify something as a person, for reasons that Diana and I discuss. Burton equivocates on the term "individual," which in some contexts implies an individual person (as opposed to an individual entity).

Obviously Amendment 48, if implemented, would ban abortions in all cases except perhaps extreme risk to the mother's life. (It would be pleasant if Burton would mention whether she thinks any level of risk to the mother's life would justify an abortion.) But for Burton to punt on the issues of birth control and fertility treatments is grossly irresponsible. Amendment 48 has clear implications for such things, and for Burton to ignore those consequences further demonstrates that it is she who would cheapen the lives of actual persons.

Biden Invites Catholic "Correction"

A couple of days ago, I pointed out that, by making abortion a matter of religious faith, Senator Joseph Biden empowered those who would outlaw the practice. Now Cardinal Justin F. Rigali and Bishop William Lori have issued a statement "correcting" Biden on the issue. (I learned of this from the AP.)

Let's start at the beginning. Here's what Biden said on "Meet the Press" on September 7:

[When does life begin?] I'd say, "Look, I know when it begins for me." It's a personal and private issue. For me, as a Roman Catholic, I'm prepared to accept the teachings of my church. But let me tell you. There are an awful lot of people of great confessional faiths -- Protestants, Jews, Muslims and others -- who have a different view. They believe in God as strongly as I do. They're intensely as religious as I am religious. They believe in their faith and they believe in human life, and they have differing views as to when life -- I'm prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception. But that is my judgment. For me to impose that judgment on everyone else who is equally and maybe even more devout than I am seems to me is inappropriate in a pluralistic society. And I know you get the push back, "Well, what about fascism?" Everybody, you know, you going to say fascism's all right? Fascism isn't a matter of faith. No decent religious person thinks fascism is a good idea. ...

[W]hat [I] voted against curtailing the right, criminalizing abortion. I voted against telling everyone else in the country that they have to accept my religiously based view that it's a moment of conception. There is a debate in our church, as Cardinal Egan would acknowledge, that's existed. Back in "Summa Theologia," when Thomas Aquinas wrote "Summa Theologia," he said there was no -- it didn't occur until quickening, 40 days after conception. How am I going out and tell you, if you or anyone else that you must insist upon my view that is based on a matter of faith? And that's the reason I haven't. But then again, I also don't support a lot of other things. I don't support public, public funding. I don't, because that flips the burden. That's then telling me I have to accept a different view. This is a matter between a person's God, however they believe in God, their doctor and themselves in what is always a --and what we're going to be spending our time doing is making sure that we reduce considerably the amount of abortions that take place by providing the care, the assistance and the encouragement for people to be able to carry to term and to raise their children.

So basically Biden's argument is that, while the issue properly is a matter of religious faith, people disagree about religious matters, so abortion ought not be outlawed. In other words, subjectivism trumps faith. Biden has no principles.

Following is most of the reply by Rigali and Lori (emphasis omitted):

[T]he Senator's claim that the beginning of human life is a "personal and private" matter of religious faith, one which cannot be "imposed" on others, does not reflect the truth of the matter. The Church recognizes that the obligation to protect unborn human life rests on the answer to two questions, neither of which is private or specifically religious.

The first is a biological question: When does a new human life begin? When is there a new living organism of the human species, distinct from mother and father and ready to develop and mature if given a nurturing environment? While ancient thinkers had little verifiable knowledge to help them answer this question, today embryology textbooks confirm that a new human life begins at conception... The Catholic Church does not teach this as a matter of faith; it acknowledges it as a matter of objective fact.

The second is a moral question, with legal and political consequences: Which living members of the human species should be seen as having fundamental human rights, such as a right not to be killed?

The Catholic Church's answer is: Everybody. No human being should be treated as lacking human rights, and we have no business dividing humanity into those who are valuable enough to warrant protection and those who are not. This is not solely a Catholic teaching, but a principle of natural law accessible to all people of good will.

The framers of the Declaration of Independence pointed to the same basic truth by speaking of inalienable rights, bestowed on all members of the human race not by any human power, but by their Creator. Those who hold a narrower and more exclusionary view have the burden of explaining why we should divide humanity into those who have moral values and those who do not and why their particular choice of where to draw that line can be sustained in a pluralistic society.

Such views pose a serious threat to the dignity and rights of other poor and vulnerable members of the human family who need and deserve our respect and protection.

While in past centuries biological knowledge was often inaccurate, modern science leaves no excuse for anyone to deny the humanity of the unborn child. Protection of innocent human life is not an imposition of personal religious conviction but a demand of justice.

Given Biden's concession that Catholic teaching defines the issue, he's powerless to answer this "correction."

But notice the weakness of Rigali and Lori's argument. They claim quite correctly that it is "objective fact" that a fertilized egg is "a new living organism of the human species, distinct from mother and father and ready to develop and mature if given a nurturing environment." (A fertilized egg is not "distinct" from the mother in that it exists wholly inside of her and lives from her nutrients.) But then they make the faith-based jump in claiming that a fertilized egg is a "human being" in the sense of personhood. What is their reason for this jump? It is the "Catholic Church's answer." That's it. There's no factual basis for the claim, no chain of reasoning. Only an appeal to authority. Thus, the pair's claim that their position is not "specifically religious" is patently false. Without religious faith in the "Catholic Church's answer," their case completely falls apart.

As Diana Hsieh and I argue in "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life:"

No one doubts that a fertilized egg is alive, that it contains human DNA, or that it has the potential to develop into a born person (assuming it implants and develops properly in a woman's uterus). The fundamental question is whether these facts are sufficient to establish a fertilized egg as the moral equivalent of an infant, worthy of full legal protections. ...

In fact, the advocates of Amendment 48 depend on an equivocation on "human being" to make their case. A fertilized egg is human, in the sense that it contains human DNA. It is also a "being," in the sense that it is an entity. That's also true of a gallbladder: it is human and it is an entity. Yet that doesn’t make your gallbladder a human person with the right to life. Similarly, the fact that an embryo is biologically a human entity is not grounds for claiming that it's a human person with a right to life. Calling a fertilized egg a "human being" is word-play intended to obscure the vast biological differences between a fertilized egg traveling down a woman's fallopian tube and a born infant sleeping in a crib. It is intended to obscure the fact that anti-abortion crusaders base their views on scripture and authority, not science.

So is a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus a person with a right to life, like an infant? No. ... From the moment of fertilization to its implantation in the womb a few days later, the embryo consists of a few largely undifferentiated cells. It is invisible to the naked eye. It has no human organs, and no human form. It has no brain, and so no capacity for awareness or feelings. It is far more similar to a few skin cells than an infant. Moreover, it cannot develop into a baby on its own: its survival beyond a few days requires successful implantation in the lining of the woman's uterus. If it fails to do that, it will be flushed from her body without anyone ever knowing of its existence.

Read the rest of the case in the paper.

Both Obama and Biden couch the issue in terms of moral subjectivism. Their religious critics reply with appeals to faith and religious authority. But neither subjectivism nor religious faith can provide an objective basis for moral decisions. The fact that Biden is wrong does not make Rigali and Lori right, or vice versa. Both sides must be rejected in favor of an objective morality rooted in the facts of human life.

Palin and Contraception

Does Sarah Palin approve of all common forms of birth control? David Harsanyi of The Denver Post claims that Senator Barbara Boxer lied about Palin by claiming she is "against birth control.” Harsanyi's claim was no surprise to me, as I'd already read she supports birth control. However, this does not address the issue that some forms of birth control may prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus, as Diana Hsieh and I discuss in our paper about Amendment 48.

I sent Harsanyi the following note:

Dave,

I knew that Palin was fine with contraception.

However, as Diana and I point out in our paper about 48, some forms of contraception, such as the pill and IUDs, may prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. (IUDs also increase the risk of medically-necessary abortions.) Given that you're a journalist with a large paper, you might be able to ask her a) whether she thinks those forms of contraception can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting and b) whether they should therefore be banned.

As much as I appreciate you taking the time to debunk false claims about Palin, you're missing the real story here. Surely a guy who rails against the nanny state would be interested in proposals to ban the birth-control pill. And if Palin indeed approves of those forms of birth control, how does that mesh with her view that personhood begins at the moment of fertilization? Either way, it's an important story.

Please let me know what you come up with.

Thanks, -Ari

To read more about the issue, please see pages 3-5 of the paper. To repeat but one point there, Ortho Tri-Cyclen (registered) claims in its prescription literature that it "reduce[s] the likelihood of implantation."

There is a very real possibility that Palin will be nominating Supreme Court justices at some point; I wouldn't be surprised if she ran for president in eight years, and I wouldn't be too surprised if she ran in four years. And the fact that McCain chose her indicates that he's more than willing to "reach out" to the religious right. (Remember that McCain's ultimate stated goal is "ending abortion.")

It's time for Palin's supporters to stop crying about the left's treatment of Palin -- as bad as that's been -- and start discussing Palin's actual views.

Left Powerless Against Religious Right

Ultimately the left is powerless against the religious right, because the left has no coherent philosophy of its own. This point is illustrated perfectly by a September 7 article in The New York Times.

What is remarkable is that, of the four people currently running for president or vice president, three of the four believe, for reasons of religious faith, that a fertilized egg has the status of a person. "...I'm prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception," Joseph Biden told "Meet the Press." The difference, the Times summarizes, is that Biden "would not impose his personal views on others, and had indeed voted against curtailing abortion rights and against criminalizing abortion."

And Obama's view? "...I don't presume to be able to answer these kinds of theological questions."

In other words, all four candidates believe the matter is to be decided by religious faith. Two of the candidates take their views to their logical conclusions and call for a total ban on abortion. (Regardless of whether McCain voted to fund abortions in cases of rape and incest, his official, ultimate goal is "ending abortion.")

Biden says the Catholic Church is correct on the matter but then refuses to enact this view in law. Ultimately, who's going to win this contest: one side says outright that abortion is murder and should be banned, while the other side implies abortion is murder yet should not be banned.

Of course the faith-based view depends on obfuscation; as Diana Hsieh and I have pointed out, technically life precedes conception, and regardless that is not the standard for personhood. But Biden lacks the integrity to talk in anything but code on the matter.

The religious right will fare even better against Obama's line. When both sides claim the matter is properly theological in nature, and one side claims to know the theological answer while the other side claims ignorance, the first side will maintain the upper hand.

The left's powerlessness against the religious right mirrors the right's powerlessness against the welfare-statist left. When McCain talks about sacrifice and serving something "greater than yourself," he cannot withstand calls to sacrifice people to the "greater" cause of the national "welfare."

While McCain would sacrifice the interests of couples to fertilized eggs, Obama would sacrifice producers to others' "welfare." What neither left nor right upholds today is the principle that each individual has the right to his own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Did Dobson Break Vow to God?

The AP reports that eight members of American Right to Life Action (ARLA) were "escorted" from the premises of Focus on the Family. But isn't Dobson the Grand Poobah of the religious right? What's going on?

ARLA explains:

American RTL Action, the political 527 group, is exposing Focus on the Family's Dr. James Dobson for violating his public pledge in which he invoked the name of God, by declaring that he is voting for John McCain. ARTL members will protest Dr. Dobson at his headquarters at 8655 Explorer Drive in Colorado Springs on Thur. Sept. 4, beginning at 7:45 a.m.

On April 28, 1990 at the Washington D.C. Rally for Life on video and to hundreds of thousands of Christians, Dr. Dobson stated, "I want to give a pledge to you on a political level... I have determined that for the rest of my life, however long God lets me live on this earth, I will never cast one vote for any man or woman who would kill one innocent baby." (See pledge video below [at the linked page].) James Dobson has endorsed John McCain for president, a Republican who has recently voted to authorize funding to kill some children by surgical abortion.

American RTL Action calls upon Jim Daly, the president of Focus, to take down the video of Dr. Dobson's pledge which still plays for tourists at their Welcome Center. Dr. Dobson has broken the public oath which he repeated over a period of years including on his Focus on the Family radio program in March of 1995 saying, "I am committed never again to cast a vote for a politician who would kill one innocent baby," referring to the rape and incest 'exceptions,' "which are a window to the soul of a 'pro-life' candidate," said ARTL Action president Steve Curtis.

"John McCain funds the killing of countless children," said the group's director of research Darrell Birkey, "for example by voting to allocate monies on Oct. 27, 2005 for tax-funded surgical abortion if the baby's father is a criminal, that is, a rapist." The official Senate.gov site documents McCain's Yea vote on the Health and Human Services Appropriations Public Law 109-149 and the Government Printing Office documents that McCain's vote authorized funding for surgical abortion to kill an unborn child whose father is a criminal as the law states, SEC. 507. (a) "funds are appropriated in this Act" that includes coverage of abortion, SEC. 508. (a) (1) "if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest."

[[Outside brackets in original:] Of course National RTL misleads Christians on Republican candidates by ignoring their pro-abortion votes; and they claim that McCain: "Voted consistently against federal funding of abortion," by ignoring his votes that funded abortion; funded dissecting the tiniest children; gave millions to Planned Parenthood; etc. A NRTL 100% rating is a near-certain indicator that a Republican is pro-choice with exceptions.]

"Dr. Dobson is violating the pledge he took before God," said Birkey, "by voting for John McCain. Both the Sarah Palin distraction, and the candidate's rhetoric to Rick Warren claiming he believes that human rights begin at conception, are belied by John McCain's long tolerance of chemical abortifacients and funding of the dissection of the tiniest embryonic boys and girls."

"In violating his 1990 pledge in which he invoked the name of God, Dr. Dobson has lost the moral authority to speak for Christians," said Curtis. "He can speak for Republicans who do not fear God, but he cannot speak for the Body of Christ. Jim Daly, please remove that video of Dr. Dobson's broken pledge from the Focus on the Family Welcome Center; you dishonor the Lord as you portray Dr. Dobson as principled and as keeping his oath before God."

Last week ARTL Action unfurled the massive Sheets Of Shame abortion protest sign on a mountain overlooking the DNC in Denver. "American RTL will expose both Republican and Democratic politicians who advocate the killing of unborn children," said Curtis, who is also a former chairman of the Colorado Republican Party. And ARTL Action reminds Dr. Dobson that Jesus Christ in the Sermon on the Mount warned His followers against invoking God's name in an oath, and regardless, forbade them from breaking their word. In the New Testament the apostle James wrote, "Do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath. But let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No,' lest you fall into judgment."

John McCain repeatedly votes to give millions of dollars to foreign and domestic abortion providers including Planned Parenthood. One week after pro-abortion Rudi Giuliani dropped out of the primary race, Republicans for Choice endorsed John McCain. And his Sanctity of Life campaign webpage doesn't even mention the words conception, rape, incest, fertilization, nor the phrase human life amendment. Further, McCain refused to co-sponsor U.S. Senator Roger Wicker's life-saving S.3111 and refuses to endorse Colorado's historic Personhood amendment initiative which is on their statewide November ballot. "McCain is as Jesus warned in Matthew 7:15," said Birkey, "a wolf in sheep's clothing, manipulating Christians into voting for someone who continues to kill the innocent preborn."

American RTL Action has a test for a Christian to rank his own loyalty to God as compared to Republican politics. A believer need only consider whether he approves of Dr. Dobson violating the pledge he made before God to increase the chance of victory for a Republican in November. As Jesus said, "No man can have two masters," yet Focus on the Family leads Christians to worship the Republican Party as an idol. American Right To Life Action urges everyone, please trust and obey God above all.

Please read this letter from Focus on the Family
which admits that Dr. Dobson has compromised on the pledge he made before God and then, sadly, tries to justify that blatant sin.

The first thing to notice (other than the fact that the members of ARLA are crazy) is that Dobson didn't actually make a vow to God, as the headline over the AP article claims. (If he had, I don't regard the breaking of a pledge to an imaginary being as quite as bad as breaking a pledge to a real person.) So Dobson's support of McCain and Palin, both of whom oppose abortion, when their opponent is hesitantly pro-choice, is a "blatant sin," according to ARLA. Talk about over the top. (I agree that Dobson has done wrong, but his fault is pushing faith-based politics, including abortion bans.)

ARLA wants to ban abortion from the moment of conception, even in cases of rape or incest.

Pay attention, people! The religious right is serious about banning abortion. Deadly serious.

"Women Should Be At Home With Their Kids Full Time"

Yes, welcome to the 21st Century.

An article in today's Denver Post reviews some of the criticism of Sarah Palin coming from the religious right.

Dr. Laura Schlesinger said, "What kind of role model is a woman whose fifth child was recently born with a serious issue, Down syndrome, and then goes back to the job of governor within days of the birth?"

Kendal Unruh, "a former board member of the Colorado Christian Coalition and a delegate at the Republican National Convention," said, "I believe women should be at home with their kids full time. But I'm not a dictator, so when they have made that choice, then I unequivocally support them."

So, in a nutshell, here's the religious right's advice for women. 1. Absolutely do not have sex unless you're married. 2. At most, use only birth control that cannot possibly hinder the implantation of a fertilized egg. 3. If you get pregnant, regardless of the circumstances, you absolutely must have the baby, even if you were raped, and even if your health or the health of the embryo is at risk, except perhaps if you're on the brink of death. 4. Once you bear a child, you should stay home to raise the child, rather than have a career, but perhaps you can have a career that advances the agenda of the religious right.

Pelosi Should Endorse Separation of Church and State

I sent the following letter to The Denver Post in reply to an article by Kathleen Parker (which is reproduced also at TownHall.com). As I didn't hear back from the Post, I'm publishing the letter here.

Pelosi Should Endorse Separation of Church and State

Kathleen Parker is right about one thing ("Pope Pelosi at the gate," August 27): House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ought not invoke faith to answer criticisms from the religious right. Instead, she should endorse the separation of church and state and refuse to enact laws based on religious dogma.

Parker's view that "human life begins at conception" implies support for Colorado's Amendment 48; she's saying that fertilized eggs should be granted full legal rights. But that measure, if fully implemented, would impose life in prison or the death penalty for women and their doctors for abortion, outlaw popular fertility treatments, ban the birth-control pill and other forms of birth control, ban promising medical research, and impose severe police controls over our sex lives. (Diana Hsieh and I critique the measure in "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life" at SecularGovernment.us.)

Notice Parker's missing link: she jumps from the obvious truth that "human development begins at fertilization" to the patent absurdity that a fertilized egg is the moral equivalent of a born infant, with the same rights. That is a gap that only religious faith can fill. Democrats and Republicans alike should reject such faith-based politics.

Sincerely,
Ari Armstrong