GOP Not Sufficiently Evangelical?

J.C. Watts argues in an article for the Las Vegas Review Journal:

In 2006, 66 percent of the evangelical community did not vote. In 2004, 52 percent of evangelicals did not vote. In 2000, 75 percent did not vote.

I haven't seen any stats on 2008 yet, but I'm not confident that McCain attracted a large segment of that vote, for whatever reason. He certainly stood for their values and principles more strongly than Obama, but couldn't seem to close the sale.

When you consider there are approximately 66 million evangelicals -- some place it as high as 90-100 million -- GOP candidates win when this demographic votes.

Watts hardly gets to the crux of the problem. As I've reviewed, McCain selected Sarah Palin in order to secure the evangelical vote. His strategy worked to a large degree, but it carried the cost of alienating many independents, women, and nonsectarian Republicans. If selecting hard-core evangelical Palin isn't enough to secure the evangelical vote, that proves only that nothing short of an outright theocrat could do so, but such a candidate would further alienate everyone else. The GOP can win on faith-based politics in the South, but the issue is a clear loser in other regions, such as Colorado.

But the category of "evangelical" is also difficult to pin down. I don't know what sources Watts has in mind, but some fraction of every demographic doesn't vote. Also, evangelicals do not all necessarily vote the same. For example, around a third of evangelicals think abortion should remain legal. So, by appealing to some evangelicals on faith-based politics, the GOP risks losing even some evangelicals, particularly those who recognize that keeping religion out of politics also means keeping politics out of religion.

If the GOP takes Watts's advice and becomes more religious, the party will lose even worse, particularly on the coasts and in the Interior West.

New Life, Same Old Subjectivism

Salon has published an article about the politics of New Life Church. This is the paragraph that struck me:

"I'm not going to tell you who to vote for," [Senior Pastor Brady Boyd] said. "You pray, fast and vote for whoever God tells you represents your values. We have a biblical worldview here, so vote for candidates who are going to do that -- who are going to uphold the Biblical worldview we all have." Mostly, Boyd seemed worried about Amendment 48. "If you're not interested in any other issue on the ballot please, please, go to the polls on Tuesday -- if you have not voted yet -- and vote yes for Amendment 48," he said, probably violating the terms of the church's tax-exempt status. "It's the right thing to do."

These people literally believe that a supernatural being is "telling" them how to vote. But presumably they don't hear an actual voice: "Hello, Brady, this is God. You need to vote for Candidate X this year. My will be done. Over." So what, then, is the mechanism by which God imparts his election wisdom? People just feel that God is guiding them in some particular way. That's it. A feeling. This is subjectivism masquerading as divine intervention.

But Pastor Boyd already knows that God will tell his flock to vote for candidates who share a "Biblical worldview." What is that? Presumably, it includes such beliefs that a fertilized egg is a person, that homosexuality is sinful and should be legally discouraged, that certain types of expression should be censored, and that certain types of peaceful activities should be criminally punished. Increasingly, the "Biblican worldview" seems for many to imply that the government should forcibly redistribute wealth, including for religious welfare and education, and centrally plan the economy such as to "protect" God's creation.

Boyd seems even more certain that God wants Coloradans to outlaw abortion (despite the weak Biblical support for such a position, which is in any case properly irrelevant). But Amendment 48 is not the "right thing to do;" it would, if enforced, unleash horrific injustice in this state. But that is a natural consequence of the moral subjectivism implicit in religion.

Amendment 48 and Personhood: Reply to Laugesen

Here I extend a debate over Amendment 48, which would define a fertilized egg as a person in Colorado's constitution. I also want also to summarize the major issues, so hopefully the piece will be of interest even to those who haven't followed that debate so far.

A few days ago the Colorado Springs Gazette published an editorial endorsing Amendment 48. I wrote a reply, which Wayne Laugesen of the Gazette answered. Even though Laugesen is wrong on this issue (though I often agree with him on other matters), it has been a pleasure to debate the matter with someone who takes objections seriously and thinks though the implications of the arguments.

The Language and Intention of Amendment 48

Again, Amendment 48 would not merely define a fertilized egg as "human," "life," or even a "person." Rather, it would grant a fertilized egg the same legal rights as a born infant, the rights to life, liberty, property, equality of justice, and due process of law. Furthermore, the explicit goal of the sponsors of Amendment 48 is to outlaw all abortion, except when the woman certainly would otherwise die. That's bad enough, but the measure logically also prohibits certain forms of birth control, medical research, and fertility treatments, as Diana Hsieh and I review.

Laugesen answers that federal and state law would continue to keep abortion legal, and that the political climate is not right for such far-reaching prohibitions. However, the advocates of the measure have promised a long-term fight to overturn Roe v. Wade as well as state laws allowing abortion, and Amendment 48 would grant them a powerful weapon in that fight.

If Laugesen doesn't think Amendment 48 could eventually ban abortion, I'm at a loss to understand why he favors the measure. It's a bit odd to endorse a measure that one thinks will have consequences dramatically different than what the sponsors of the measure anticipate. As I argued previously, the problems that Laugesen seeks to address aren't even real problems, and if they were they could be addressed with delimited statutes.

The Conditions of Personhood

What are the necessary and sufficient conditions of personhood? Obviously a person is alive and human (though if we were to discover intelligent life elsewhere presumably "person" would become the broader concept). But many other things are alive and human, in the sense of containing human DNA, including my kidney and every cell in my body. So those conditions are necessary but not sufficient.

A person must have the genetic code capable of creating or sustaining an independent existence. Notice that it's not true that each person has distinct DNA (and I think I've misstated this point myself), for identical twins start out as the same fertilized egg and then split apart from each other. So unique DNA is not even a necessary condition of personhood. But DNA capable of forming and sustaining a human body is necessary.

Part of the difficulty of thinking about a fertilized egg is that it is in some respects unique. It shares some similarities with with other human cells and organs, yet it has the distinctive capacity to develop into a born infant and then an adult human (in the right conditions). It is this distinctiveness that draws some to equate fertilization with personhood. Yet that is a mistake. The only options are not "living human never-person" and "living human person." A fertilized egg is a third sort of thing: it is living and human with the potential for turning into a person. But a potential is not an actual. It is ludicrous to equate a zygote, a mass of undifferentiated cells with no organs, with a born infant, and declare that both should be legally indistinguishable.

Laugesen claims that only superstition can mark the onset of personhood, if we reject the point of fertilization. This ignores the obvious, blindingly bright line: birth. Something dramatic happens at birth. No longer is the fetus completely contained within the body of the woman, completely dependent on her at the biological level for oxygen and sustenance. At birth, the fetus becomes a separate baby, able to breath with his own lungs, digest food with his own organs, and, notably, leave his mother. A born infant is still highly dependent in the sense that somebody must provide him with nutrition, warmth, etc., yet a born infant is radically independent relative to a fetus in that the born infant is a physically separate biological entity.

Personhood implies legal rights, as Amendment 48 recognizes. Yet, to have legal rights, individual rights, one must be an individual in the basic physical sense. A fetus has no such independent existence. And that matters very much. For instance, if a woman needs cancer treatment that might harm the fetus, even though the woman might not otherwise die before delivery, the woman has every right to get that treatment, even if it kills the fetus.

Laugesen is correct that the development of a fertilized egg to a late-stage fetus is a continual and gradual one, without any momentary lines of demarcation. The brain develops slowly; it does not just pop instantly into the fetus's head. However, that does not imply that a fertilized egg is the same thing as a late-stage fetus. The two are radically different. One is just a few cells, the other has all the organs that an adult person has.

It is this distinction that draws Leonard Peikoff, for instance, to a discussion that centers on early-term abortions:

The status of the embryo in the first trimester is the basic issue that cannot be sidestepped. The embryo is clearly pre-human; only the mystical notions of religious dogma treat this clump of cells as constituting a person.

We must not confuse potentiality with actuality. An embryo is a potential human being. It can, granted the woman’s choice, develop into an infant. But what it actually is during the first trimester is a mass of relatively undifferentiated cells that exist as a part of a woman’s body.

This points to two additional factors that are necessary for personhood: developed human organs and physical separateness (i.e., birth). Consider, for instance, that if a woman's body expels a living fertilized egg, we do not consider that she has given "birth" to a "child." We don't hold a funeral complete with a miniature coffin. (As Hsieh and I point out, most fertilized eggs are naturally flushed out of a woman's body; we do not consider this to be some sort of horrific tragedy, as we would if all fertilized eggs truly were people.)

Together, those conditions of personhood -- life, human DNA, developed organs, and physical separateness -- are sufficient for personhood. If something doesn't have those four characteristics, it's not a person.

Peikoff answers those who would equate a potential person with an actual one:

If we are to accept the equation of the potential with the actual and call the embryo an "unborn child," we could, with equal logic, call any adult an "undead corpse" and bury him alive or vivisect him for the instruction of medical students.

The entire case for granting personhood status to fertilized eggs rests on the fallacy of equating a potential with an actual.

The Meaning of "Human"

Laugesen claims, as I've heard before (and as Kristi Burton, sponsor of Amendment 48 has also claimed), that the meaning of "person" and "human" are indistinguishable. That's clearly wrong. For instance, we say that a kidney is a human organ, but we don't claim that a kidney is a person. As Hsieh and I have argued, the advocates of Amendment 48 routinely equivocate on the term "human," jumping from "containing human DNA" to personhood for no good reason. One finds this dual meaning of "human" whether one turns to the Oxford English Dictionary or Dictionary.com.

A Zygote Versus a Felon

Laugesen argues that, as we can restrict the life and liberty of a murderous felon, so we can restrict the life and liberty of a zygotic "person." However, the comparison falls apart because a zygote is not a person. If a zygote were a person, it would be quite unjust to treat a zygote as though it were guilty of first-degree murder. A murderer has willfully removed himself from civil society. Notably, to be criminally punished one must be found guilty according to "due process of law" -- a right granted to fertilized eggs by Amendment 48.

A fertilized egg is not a person. Amendment 48 is wrong in its assumptions and frightening in its implications.

Amendment 48: Laugesen Replies

Recently I replied to an editorial by Colorado Spring's Gazette that endorsed Amendment 48. Wayne Laugesen, the editorial page editor of the paper, took the time to write a detailed reply, which he graciously allowed me to reproduce below. I will respond in a subsequent post. -Ari Armstrong

Wayne Laugesen: re: "Nobody argues that any fetus is guilty of felony murder, so the comparison is bizarre."

The point is this: You seem concerned that if an egg is lawfully recognized as a "person," nobody will be allowed to kill it without landing in prison. A death row inmate is indisputably a "person." So clearly, we make lawful decisions to kill some "persons." We may lawfully kill a "person" convicted of first degree murder because the "person" is burdensome to society. We may lawfully kill a "person" who threatens our safety after breaking into our home. We may also lawfully kill a person whose life depends upon a mother's womb, because that person isn't independent and may be burdensome to the mother and society. Some may not like this fact of settled law, but it is a fact. The point is that defining a fertilized egg or a mature fetus as a "person" does not preclude someone from lawfully killing that person. If that were the case, we would not be allowed to kill in self defense or to kill murder convicts, simply because they are "persons" by any definition. Ending abortion may well be the intent of 48's authors, but their intent wouldn't make it so.

All major, high ranking definitions I can find of "person" and "human" are interchangeable.

Yes, your liver is a human element, but it does not contain all of the components of a complete person. It will never have its own brain, or its own eyes or ears, etc., and it will never be capable of reading and writing and paying taxes. The same cannot be said for a zygote, which is the beginning stage of the life of a "person," whether the zygote lives a day or continues to mature for 100 years. The life begins at that moment of conception, and it ends at the moment of death. There is not a magical event somewhere in between, convenient as that event might be. Scientifically, a human life is an exact timeline with one beginning and one end. Any theories to the contrary involve an imaginary event at a convenient point on the timeline, and that sounds like religion. Bestowing rights at an arbitrary point on the timeline of life is perfectly logical; bestowing "life" or "personhood," by contrast, involves superstition. This issue is not really about "person" or "non-person," the issue is "full rights," "no rights," or "limited rights" for some persons but not for all persons. Society does not guarantee all "persons" equal outcomes in life. Society does not protect all "persons" equally.

I think we would agree that a six-month-old fetus is a human with a brain, a mouth, a nose, arms, legs, etc. and etc. Correct? Yet society, knowing those facts, has decided to protect a woman's right to kill that "person" or "human" or "fetus" or whatever one chooses to call him or her. This has little to do with science, and much to do with the legitimate human practice of allocating rights. If we pretend it's based in a meaningful scientific distinction, we're entertaining a convenient fantasy. In truth, it's based in legitimate practical considerations and the allocation of rights.

That being the case, it's not important to pretend that a fertilized egg is something other than the first stage in the life of a "human," and therefore a "person." I don't see why it's a problem to call a person a person, and then decide which persons have rights worth protecting and at what point on the timeline of life those rights deserve a societal defense. This has absolutely nothing to do with religion. Religious leaders and believers can make up the rules as they go. Therefore, any religion is free to define "life" however it chooses, or to decide who has rights and when those rights are endowed. Religions that wish to abuse women, for example, are free to define only men as "persons" and then try to impose their definitions through theocratic rule of law. But science is objective, and scientifically life begins at conception. Our laws, in a constitutional Republic as opposed a theocracy, should use scientifically objective definitions.

You agree with me that a fertilized egg is living and human. And I think we basically agree on most major points in this discussion. The main difference between our positions is the fact that you are using the word "person" to describe a being with a full slate of human rights that society must accept, while maintaining that a human with limited rights is something less than a "person." That requires you, therefore, to argue that a death row inmate is not a "person," and a predator shot by a victim is not a "person." After all, these humans do not have the same rights to live as other humans do.

I, by contrast, am using the word "person" to describe a "human" at any stage of development, acknowledging that society does not treat all "persons" equally, it cannot, it never has and it never will. Again, scientifically speaking a sprouting acorn is biologically an oak. That does not mean it's due all the protection of a giant shade tree. Likewise, I understand that society will never protect a day-old zygote the way it protects a member of Congress. If we look at this issue through a lens of reproductive politics and sociopolitical practicality, Amendment 48 is a menace. If we look at it through a lens of incorporating truthful, logical, scientific, objective definitions into law, it seems like a reasonable proposition. And I know you don't believe that it negates Roe v. Wade. I'm equally certain that you understand how Roe v. Wade has absolutely no role in Colorado's abortion laws, which exceed the minimal requirements of Roe v. Wade. Of course, all of this is completely academic as Amendment 48 has never had the slightest chance of passing because it's not politically viable here. It is, however, a good topic for discovery and discussion. I found your paper on this issue thorough and well written. -- Wayne

Amendment 48: Reply to the Gazette

An October 29 editorial by the Colorado Springs Gazette urges voters to "get real," yet in endorsing Amendment 48 the editorial ignores all the realities about the measure and its flaws. Here I reply to the editorial point by point (all indented text is from the editorial).

The moment the egg is fertilized... it becomes a microscopic person with a unique genetic code. Similarly, the acorn becomes an oak tree, in seedling stage, when it germinates. Basic science tells us a sprouted acorn is not a lifeless mass; nor is a zygote.

A fertilized egg has a unique genetic code, true, and it is not a "lifeless mass," for it is definitely alive (as are the unfertilized egg and the sperm cell). But where does the Gazette get the notion that a fertilized egg is a "person," with all the same rights as a newborn? The editorial offers no answer.

Let us review what Amendment 48 would do. It would add a new section to Colorado's constitution stating, "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." Those other articles explicitly bestow the rights to life, liberty, property, equality of justice, and due process of law.

Amendment 48 does not say that a fertilized egg is alive, nor that it has human DNA, nor that it is a potential person. It says that a fertilized egg is a person, with all the legal rights of a born infant. And that is a key point that the Gazette steadfastly ignores.

The comparison to an oak tree is interesting though peripheral. I've never heard a single person call a sprouted acorn an "oak tree," and the two have obvious differences. Regardless, the comparison goes only so far, because a germinated acorn is not contained within and completely dependent upon the body of an oak tree, as a zygote is relative to a woman. That fact matters when it comes to individual rights, yet it is another crucial point the Gazette ignores.

Amendment 48... would establish a rational, scientific, reasonable and legal definition of when human life begins.

This is wrong on two counts. First, Amendment 48 does not attempt to define when life begins; it attempts to define when personhood begins. Second, life does not begin at conception; it precedes conception.

Voting "yes" on Amendment 48 is a vote for honesty, not a decision to outlaw contraception, abortion, cloning or fetal stem cell research. ... The highest court in the land told all 50 states they must protect the rights of mothers to kill fetuses that haven't progressed into the third trimester of pregnancy.

However, the stated goal of the advocates of Amendment 48 is to use the measure in an attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade. If Amendment 48 were enforced -- which would depend on rolling back federal provisions -- then it would outlaw any act harmful to a fertilized egg, except perhaps abortion to save the woman's life.

But few Americans would support the needless torture of a fetus. Few would support the killing of a preborn child by a drunken driver or an attacker, against the mother's will. Some of America's most pro-choice citizens would object to gratuitous experimentation, abuse or killing of fetuses. A definition of unborn humans as "persons" would aid society in protecting some rights of the unborn, should society choose to do so.

The pregnant woman has rights, and thus anyone who harms her fetus is subject to criminal prosecution. It is simply not possible to harm a fetus without harming the woman in the process, and the woman as the carrier of the fetus has the right to protect it. Amendment 48 is not about banning gratuitous injury to a fetus; it is about granting a fetus full legal rights. (Anyway preventing gratuitous injury does not rest on the definition of personhood; for example, rightly or wrongly the law prevents gratuitous injury to dogs.)

Opponents of the measure have raised alarming concerns. They claim that any woman who takes the morning-after pill, which can abort a fertilized egg, could be convicted of first-degree murder should Amendment 48 pass. They say the law would outlaw abortion, even resulting in criminal investigations each time a woman suffers a natural miscarriage. They don't happen to mention that Colorado is forbidden by federal law to outlaw abortion.

Diana Hsieh and I certainly do discuss the interplay between federal and state law in our paper; see pages 2-3. We also point out that Kristi Burton, sponsor of Amendment 48, wants to use the measure to overturn Roe v. Wade.

I have heard nobody claim that "natural miscarriages" would "each" be subject to criminal investigation. Rather, Hsieh and I have correctly claimed that any miscarriage suspected of being intentional could be subject to criminal prosecution, if Amendment 48 were enforced.

[Opponents] say state law forbids the killing of a "person," so under 48 abortion is doomed. Yet Colorado has the death penalty, and there's no question that death row inmates are "persons."

Nobody argues that any fetus is guilty of felony murder, so the comparison is bizarre.

Abortion is legal in Colorado because state law says it's legal. ...

Yet Amendment 48 is a constitutional provision, and as such it would trump any statute.

Perhaps there was a time of primitive science when intelligent adults didn't know when life begins.

Again, this point is irrelevant, and the claim that life begins at conception is obviously false.

The debate regarding legal rights of a fetus should no longer center on the myth that our science is fuzzy. That's a dishonest discussion. Instead, it should focus on what fetal rights a society shall or shall not defend, with full acknowledgement that a fetus is human from the moment of conception.

The fact that a fetus is human does not establish that it is a person. My kidney is human, for example. As Hsieh and I point out, advocates of Amendment 48 routinely rely on an equivocation on the term "human," jumping from the meaning of having human DNA to personhood without argument or evidence.

If abortion laws depend on a misconception that a fetus isn't human, they will not last. If they're based in a societal decision that unborn humans have limited rights, then abortion laws are safe.

Perhaps the Gazette could offer a single example of somebody who claims that a fetus is something other than human, in the sense of having human DNA.

Amendment 48 would merely bring the legal definition of "person" in line with the fact that a fertilized egg is a person in the earliest stage of life.

You notice what argument the Gazette uses to establish this point: none. Yet the Gazette manages to leave between the lines the only "reason" yet offered for thinking that a fertilized egg is a person: religious faith.

Palin's Prayer Warriors

The October 23 Denver Daily News published a story about Sarah Palin's views on God and the election. I found a rough transcript of her interview with James Dobson, on which the news story was based.

Dobson said he and others have been praying for "God's intervention"; that "God's perfect will will be done in November the fourth." I.e., they think God has the ability to sway the election in favor of McCain-Palin, and they are asking God to do so. (The mechanism by which God would supposedly do this is unclear; apparently he would "touch people's hearts" or some such -- possess them -- in the voting booths.)

Palin replied:

Well, it is that intercession that is so needed and so greatly appreciated. And I can feel it too, Dr. Dobson. I can feel the power or prayer and that strength is provided through our prayer warriors across this nation and I so appreciate it. [Dobson says, " Well, you hear that everywhere you do, don't you?] I do, and that is what allows us to continue to be inspired and strengthened. And it's just a great reminder also when we hear along the rope lines that people are interceding for us and praying for us; it's our reminder to do the same, to put this all in God's hands, to seek his perfect will for this nation and to, of course, seek his wisdom and guidance in putting this nation back on the right track.

If McCain is elected, Palin will be a heartbeat away from the most powerful political office in the world. If she becomes president, she will think that God placed her in that position and that her duty is to impose God's "perfect will" on the nation.

Meanwhile, as Myrhaf reviews, Rush Limbaugh has called on those who reject faith-based politics to leave the Republican Party. Read the transcript.

There can be no doubt -- because leading Republicans have gone out of their way to remind us -- that the Republican Party is the party of the religious right. Palin's comments have prompted me to again think seriously about voting for Obama (rather than nobody).

If Palin does become president, several things might mitigate her damage. She would (probably) face a Democratic Congress, which would (probably) block the worst possible Supreme Court nominees. She is inept, so she might flub the job so badly that she'd be enormously unpopular. And, regardless of her performance, the American people might revolt against her overt and overriding faith-based politics. I don't think I need to outline the worst-case scenario.

Beauprez Reminds Voters of Schaffer's Faith-Based Politics

Bob Beauprez, former congressman and failed candidate for governor, has reminded voters that U.S. Senate Candidate Bob Schaffer opposes abortion and embryonic stem-cell research. Yet Beauprez's own faith-based politics cost him big in 2006, when he earned only 40 percent of the votes. While Beauprez made a number of campaign mistakes, his own commitment to faith-based politics, as well as an even more pronounced commitment by his running mate, alienated many moderate Republicans and independents. Will Beauprez bring the same magic touch to Schaffer's race?

Mike Riley reviews Beauprez's efforts for the Denver Post:

Former U.S. Rep. Bob Beauprez is blanketing the state with recorded calls that take aim at Democratic Senate candidate Mark Udall... The calls are targeted at Catholic voters...

Voters who receive the robo-calls hear Beauprez's voice talking about the "five non-negotiables" of Catholic doctrine — opposition to abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, embryonic stem-cell research and human cloning.

He tells listeners that Udall is on the wrong side of each, and he lauds Udall's opponent, Republican Bob Schaffer.

It's not clear that the calls will help Schaffer even among Catholics. One recent poll found that 51 percent of Catholics believe "Abortion should be legal and solely up to the woman to decide." More broadly, Beauprez reminds voters that the Republican Party in Colorado is all about imposing sectarian dogma by law.

What's repulsive is that Beauprez calls his faith-based policies "values issues." What is valuable is a government that respects individual rights. One that violates individual rights by enforcing religious law destroys values.

Burton Backtracks on Amendment 48

As I've pointed out, Kristi Burton likes to pretend that Amendment 48 wouldn't have the nasty legal implications that her opponents claim.

But on October 14, Burton even backed away from her opposition to abortion, telling a crowd, "We're not saying outlaw abortion, do this, do that. It's simply a definition."

Apparently, Burton believes that Amendment 48 has a shot only if she lies about her intentions. The advocates of the measure most certainly are "saying outlaw abortion." Burton herself has said elsewhere that she sees Amendment 48 as an opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade.

What should we make of Burton's claim that Amendment 48 is "simply a definition?" As I wrote in an e-mail in reply to that question, "Amendment 48 would amend the Colorado constitution. Constitutional provisions are laws; they are laws of higher order than legislative statutes. If a statute contradicts a constitutional provision, courts will look to the constitution as the higher law. Many laws contain definitions, and the definitions are critical for how the law is interpreted and applied. So it's a mistake to think of Amendment 48 as merely a definition; it would add a definition to the state's constitution, thereby becoming part of the fundamental law that guides the passage and application of legislative statutes."

Of course, as Diana Hsieh and I point out in our paper, whether and to what extent Amendment 48 is implemented depends on federal as well as state court rulings. As Ed Quillen points out, neither the legislature nor the courts always follow existing constitutional language. However, in our paper Diana and I explain why that's hardly comforting:

The legislature and courts in Colorado might be strongly tempted to pretend that Amendment 48 doesn't mean what it plainly says in order to avoid its absurd implications. Such a course of legislative and judicial winking might save Colorado from the worst effects of the measure, but it would do so by undermining the basic principle of rule of law so essential to a free society.

Alternately, the Colorado legislature could try to rewrite the myriad statutes mentioning "person" or "persons" to exclude fertilized eggs, embryos, and fetuses. However, anti-abortion lawyers could effectively challenge such legislative changes based on the constitutional language of Amendment 48. The measure would be subject to interpretation by Colorado courts, but those courts would be legally bound by the constitution, including Amendment 48.

If Amendment 48 passes, its exact effects would depend greatly on the decisions of future legislators and judges. However, we can be sure that the advocates of Amendment 48 will work doggedly to force the Colorado government to fully implement and enforce the measure.

As Burton demonstrates, "half the truth is a great lie." True, Amendment 48 would not automatically be enforced. However, the advocates of Amendment 48 have put it forward precisely because they want to outlaw abortion and in every other way legally protect a fertilized egg. For Burton to pretend otherwise proves only that she knows she cannot win an honest debate.

Amendment 48: Burton's Equivocation

At least Kristi Burton and I agree on something: the tag line of "it simply goes to far" is a terrible critique of Amendment 48, which would define a fertilized egg as a person in Colorado's constitution. Beyond that, Burton simply refuses to honestly discuss the implications of Amendment 48 or to answer her serious critics.

Burton writes for the October 18 Vail Daily:

It has been interesting to watch the strategy of the "no on 48" campaign. They know if they attempt to contend human life doesn’t begin at conception they’re arguing with virtually every geneticist and embryology textbook available. So instead, they take issue with the dictionary. They concede that human life begins at conception, but claim "personhood" doesn’t begin until some later, yet to be determined, date. They never come out and say it, but they assume it's OK to "terminate" a developing human until he or she reaches that undefined point of "personhood." If they simply pick up any dictionary and look up "person," they will find the definition: "A human being." That’s what it's meant for the last several centuries. "Person" and "human being" have always been the same thing, but the no on 48 folks plan to change all that. And, they do it as though no one should even question their totally illogical and false premise. They simply assume it's true and expect you to do the same.

But Diana Hsieh and I have directly addressed Burton's arguments. Burton cannot have failed to become aware of our paper, as Diana and I have promoted it widely in newspaper columns, letters, online comments to news articles, and the internet. For Burton to completely ignore our arguments reveals her intellectual dishonesty.

Notice Burton's progression: she claims that a fertilized egg is "human life," then she jumps to "person," which she equates with "human being." Burton's argument is incredibly rationalistic, so silly on its face that it obviously disguises her real motive for supporting the measure: she believes the Bible forbids abortion and that God has declared a fertilized egg to be a person, with all the same legal rights as you and me.

Obviously a fertilized egg is "human life." It is alive, and it contains human DNA. Every cell in our bodies is "human life" for the same reason. Burton is quite wrong in claiming that "human life" begins at conception; both the sperm cell and unfertilized egg are also human and alive. What Burton steadfastly refuses to consider are the very real biological differences between a fertilized egg and a born baby. Diana and I discuss these differences at length, and in the process we clearly define the beginning of personhood.

For the answer to Burton's claims, see pages 10-13 of our paper. First Diana and I point out Burton's equivocation:

[T]he 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.

Here is the most relevant passage on personhood (sans citations):

[S]o long as the fetus remains within the woman, it is wholly dependent on her for its basic life-functions. It goes where she goes, eats what she eats, and breathes what she breathes. It lives as she lives, as an extension of her body. It is wholly contained within and dependent on her for its survival. So if the woman dies, the fetus will die too unless delivered quickly. The same is true if the fetus's life-line to her body is disrupted, such as when the umbilical cord forms a tight knot. A fetus cannot act independently to sustain its life, not even on the basic biological level possible to a day-old infant. It is thoroughly dependent on the woman in which it lives.

That situation changes radically at birth. A baby lives his own life, outside his mother. Although still very needy, he maintains his own biological functions. He breathes his own air, digests his own food, and moves on his own. He interacts with other people as a whole and distinct creature in his own right, not merely as a part of a pregnant woman. He can leave his mother, either temporarily or permanently, to be cared for by someone else. He has a life of his own that must be protected as a matter of right, just the same as every other person. That's why the killing of a just-born infant is immoral -- and properly forbidden by law. However, while just a fetus within the woman, the only person with rights is the woman.

Recently Diana posted some comments by William Stoddard along the same lines:

Aside from the question of self-awareness, the other critical point is that the fetus does not meet a necessary condition for having individual rights: It is not an individual.

Individualism works, ethically, because we can draw a line of separation between individuals. It's possible to benefit one individual without doing so at the expense of another; individual rights provide a legal structure that makes such results not merely possible but reliable. We are not forced to trade off benefits to one individual against injuries to another. And what makes collectivism evil is that it does force such tradeoffs on us.

But if ever there was a case of collectivism in human existence, it's in the relationship between a pregnant woman and her unborn child. The fetus cannot be neutral with respect to the woman carrying it; its very existence alters her hormones, her entire physiology, and her emotional state. Even if the woman wants to be pregnant, it's all too possible, despite the achievements of medicine, for situations to arise where a benefit to the fetus entails harm to the mother, or vice versa, and where it's necessary to decide which benefit is more important. Trying to sort this out by applying the concept of individual rights just doesn't work.

And there's only one decision maker there: the pregnant woman. The fetus lacks sufficient rationality, purposefulness, and self-awareness to make choices. The pregnant woman has to decide where her priorities are. Some pregnant women will choose to take terrifying risks for the chance to have a child, and that's their right; they can say "Price no object" if they want. Others will abort, for whatever reason. Either way, they pay the price of their choices. Having someone else, who doesn't have to pay that price, make the decision for them, or tell them what they can and can't do, cannot be expected to produce better decisions.

Burton wishes us to forget the actual language of Amendment 48. It does not merely say, "We think a fertilized egg is human life" or even a person. Rather, it grants a fertilized egg the same rights to life, liberty, property, and due process of law that born babies have. Thus, it would have radical implications for the law. Burton pretends that the measure does not mean what it says. In her Vail Daily piece, she writes:

The rest of the arguments of the no on 48 campaign are designed to convince you the amendment will interfere with women's health care and cause women who have miscarriages to be carted off to jail. These scare tactics aren't true. Dottie Lamm and Linda Campbell go on at length about the possible affects of the amendment. They keep using the term, "it could" do this or that in their attempt to frighten voters.

The amendment merely extends protection to both mother and baby. It recognizes that women also are persons. I’m a woman and will probably marry and have children someday. Would I help create a law intended to unduly endanger myself?

Here we move on from Burton's Equivocation to Burton's Bifurcation. As I've pointed out at length, Burton simultaneously wants to claim that Amendment 48 would lay the basis for banning abortion, but that it would not lead to other nasty implications. Yet, if a fertilized egg is a person, with all the same legal rights as a born infant, and if such a definition is legally enforced, then the logical implications are these: all abortion must be banned, even in cases of rape, incest, fetal deformity, and health risks that are not immediately life-threatening to the woman; all forms of birth control that may prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus must be banned; all fertility treatments that may result in the destruction of fertilized eggs must be banned; and all abortions and intentional miscarriages must be criminally prosecuted. Burton keeps repeating that these implications are "scare tactics" that "aren't true." Yet they are logical implications of Amendment 48, and Burton has never offered a single argument otherwise.

Burton does let slip a concession, however: notice that Amendment 48 would not "unduly endanger" her life. What does that mean? It means that, if doctors believe that failure to abort necessarily would kill the woman, and they don't fear criminal prosecution if they abort, then Amendment 48 likely would permit the abortion. However, as I've pointed out, rarely are risks so clear cut. Amendment 48 would endanger the health and lives of some women; whether that endangerment is "undue" would depend on how the legislature and courts decided the criminality of abortion. There can be no doubt that, in some cases, Amendment 48 would result in the deaths of women.

While Amendment 48 certainly is no laughing matter, I did get a chuckle over Burton's projection:

Resorting to repetitive use of a meaningless phrase is a propaganda tactic commonly employed when there is no substance to an argument. Opponents of 48 are hoping for what psychologists call a "conditioned response." You step into the voting booth and when you see Amendment 48 that little phrase automatically jumps into your head and you vote no.

Changing "opponents" to "advocates" and "no" to "yes," that pretty much summarizes Burton's case for Amendment 48.

AP Details Palin's Tax-Funded Church Tours

I actually meant to place this post here, but now that it's been up I'll leave it. The upshot is that Sarah Palin used tax funds as governor to attend religious events and used her political offices to work against abortion rights and support faith-based welfare. Read the article from the Associated Press for more.

Amendment 48: Letters and Replies

Today the Rocky Mountain News features a couple of online letters regarding Amendment 48, along with replies.

Dan Kushmaul writes:

A fertilized egg is not an individual. It has the potential to be a person, or two people, or many. If we declare a fertilized egg a person, does that mean identical twins are legally one individual? If a fertilized egg is a person or persons, then any contraception or procedure that prevents implantation, or perhaps even fertilization, will constitute depriving a person of life - murder. Do we really want to criminalize IUDs, condoms, and the pill, and force in vitro fertilization clinics to implant every egg they fertilize?

Kushmaul's comments point to some of the absurdities of the measure. They do not, however, get to the root of why a fertilized egg is not a person; for that, please read the paper by Diana Hsieh and me. A fertilized egg is not an "individual" person -- it is not a person at all -- but it is an individual fertilized egg, regardless of how many people it might become. The problem is that the advocates of the measure routinely equivocate on terms like "human being," "individual," etc., reading into those terms personhood where none actually exists.

Somebody called "LetsThink" posts a reply to which I responded:

"LetsThink" asks, "Can you tell us with absolutely no question, when Life begins???"

That question is irrelevant. Amendment 48 does not define when "life" begins; it (arbitrarily) defines when personhood begins. Life does not begin at conception; life precedes conception. Both the sperm cell and pre-fertilized egg are alive. Life is a never-ending chain that goes back to the first living things. So the only sensible answer to the question is "around four billion years ago."

"LetsThink" denies that "the baby is part of the mother." But that statement is ambiguous. The fertilized egg is not an element of the woman's own bodily functions, as a kidney is. The fertilized egg contains a unique set of human DNA. So, no, a fertilized egg is not like a kidney in that way. But a fertilized egg (through the fetal stage) is entirely contained within and completely dependent upon the woman's body, and that fact is central to the issue of personhoon. Biological distinction, in the sense of existing independently, physically apart from another person, is a necessary condition for personhood.

"LetsThink" declares, without offering a single example and with loaded language, "It's time for Abortionists to stop lying." No, it's time for "LetsThink" to start telling the truth.

For a complete discussion of the horrific consequences of Amendment 48, and a more detailed explanation of why a fertilized egg is not a person, please see the paper by Diana Hsieh and me titled, "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life:"
http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf

L. Fortier points out that a common alternative to legal abortion are "back-alley abortions." As Diana and I point out, that argument becomes relevant only once it is established that a fertilized egg is not a person. Parker is correct in writing, "Amendment 48 also includes birth control pills and could lead to prosecution of parents and doctors after in vitro procedures wherein extra fertilized eggs are disposed of. This is a dangerous door to open."

"LetsThink" posts another reply, to which I responded:

"LetsThink" claims, "There is no defense for abortion." Yet implicit within "LetsThink's" other statements is the beginning of just such a defense. While "LetsThink" arbitrarily conflates a fertilized egg with a born "baby" -- despite the obvious and radical differences between the two -- "LetsThink" also points out that a fertilized egg is merely a "potential" person, not an actual one. A fertilized egg into its early development doesn't even have any organs. More importantly, it is completely contained within and biologically dependent upon the woman's body.

But "LetsThink's" post does serve an important function: it reminds us that Amendment 48 is about religious faith. It is an attempt to enforce religious dogma through force of law. Notably, existing Colorado statutes define first-degree murder as intentionally killing a "person" -- a crime subject to life in prison or the death penalty.

Diana Hsieh and I summarize and detail in our paper, "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life:"
http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf

Perhaps someday an advocate of Amendment 48 will actually attempt to reply to the arguments of that paper. But I doubt it.

Amendment 48 Sponsor Hedges on Implications

A recent debate about Amendment 48, which would define a fertilized egg as a person in Colorado's constitution, pit the obfuscater against the appeaser, as a story by David Montero of the Rocky Mountain News makes clear. We begin with Kristi Burton, the measure's sponsor:

She criticized those who argue that her amendment would create a legal morass because the word "person" appears in more than 20,000 state statutes.

"A definition doesn't have that power," she said. "A definition lays down the foundation . . . but it doesn't guarantee any particular result."

Yet Burton has made clear that her intention with Amendment 48 is to ban abortion except to save the life of the woman. So clearly she does think that a mere definition -- in reality a fundamental change in the state constitution -- can "have that power," contingent on federal changes.

If Amendment 48 can ban abortion based on the legal fiction that a fertilized egg is a person, then it can also do all the other things that Diana Hsieh and I outline in our paper, Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life." It can ban the birth control pill and other forms of birth control that can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. It can ban fertility treatments that often involve the destruction or freezing of fertilized eggs. It can ban medical research involving fertilized eggs. And it can subject women and their doctors to criminal prosecution for obtaining an abortion or intentionally causing a miscarriage. These are not merely hypothetical scare stories; they are logical implications. True, the amendment may not be consistently interpreted or enforced, and its implementation depends on federal changes, as Diana and I write in the paper, but if the measure is implemented those other consequences naturally follow.

Against Burton, Pat Steadman said, "I think it's hard to imagine there not being unintended consequences." That response is pathetic. First, the consequence that even Burton openly advocates -- a near-complete ban on abortion -- is horrific. It would massively violate the rights of women of reproductive age, along with their partners and doctors, and it would lead to police-state controls. It would force women to bring to term pregnancies even in cases of rape, incest, fetal deformity, and health risks -- that is, when the health risks did not cause the woman to die first.

Second, the other consequences that Diana and I outline are fully intended and openly stated by the honest advocates of Amendment 48. Various members of the religious right openly call for bans on the pill, bans on select medical research, and severe criminal penalties -- including the death penalty -- for women who get abortions. It is true that Amendment 48 would have many other consequences that are unintended, but it is evil precisely because of what its backers intend.

Burton also continued her unsubstantiated assertions that a fertilized egg is a person. Montero begins, "Science now knows that life begins at the moment of conception, the initiator of the Personhood Amendment told an audience of 30 at the University of Denver Thursday night." Yet life does not begin at conception; it precedes conception.

Burton claimed "that medical science tells us that when an egg is fertilized at conception, a human being has been created." Yet as Diana and I write in the paper, Burton relies on an equivocation on the term "human being" to fudge her case. A fertilized egg is human, in the sense that it contains human DNA, and it is a potential person, but it is not an actual person. But Burton is not interested in promoting honest debate or answering her critics. Hers is an agenda of religious faith, and the facts be damned.

Amendment 48: Ritter's Faith-Based Strategy Backfires

Bill Ritter came out against Amendment 48 on October 7. But the way he did it actually helps the advocates of the measure.

As Tim Hoover reports for The Denver Post, Ritter said at a rally at the capitol, "I believe the amendment goes too far." In this line Ritter follows the slogan of the main campaign against the measure, a position that implies some restrictions on abortion, birth control, and fertility treatments would be fine. That line makes those opponents of Amendment 48 look like cowardly hypocrites. That's why Diana Hsieh and I don't repeat that line and criticize its use in our paper.

But Ritter's main problem is that he tried to oppose a faith-based measure while appealing to faith. As Hoover reports, Ritter said, "In spite of the fact that I'm pro-life, I can look at this and really find reasons I think it is just such an extreme position to take... My understanding is that there are things about calling a fertilized egg a person that do not square with church doctrine."

With this statement, Ritter granted that church doctrine should guide the law. What Ritter should have said is that as governor he has a responsibility to protect the separation of church and state, and Amendment 48 clearly seeks to impose religious dogma by force of law.

Predictably, Hoover's follow-up article for today carries the headline, "Bishops chide Ritter on view of personhood." Hoover reports:

The archbishop of Denver on Wednesday publicly scolded Gov. Bill Ritter... for comments he made about whether a fertilized egg is a person.

In a statement given to news outlets, Archbishop Charles Chaput, along with Auxiliary Bishop James Conley, said Ritter's comments on Amendment 48 "seriously confused" the issue. ...

Ritter's comments about the church's stance on a fertilized egg are false, the bishops said.

"Catholic teaching holds that human life is sacred from the moment of fertilization, commonly called 'conception,' to the moment of natural death," the bishops wrote in the statement. "Separating a 'fertilized egg' from the dignity of human personhood is bad theology and bad public policy.

"And Catholic public officials should know better."

Catholic bishops should know better than to push around Colorado's elected officials, who are charged with enacting and executing nonsectarian laws, not imposing Catholic doctrine on the state. But Ritter invited the rebuke by resting the matter on religious faith.

At least Bishops Chaput and Conley have reinforced what was already obvious: Amendment 48 is about religious faith, nothing else. The Catholic church regards a fertilized egg as "sacred," and that is the end of the argument.

Meanwhile, Kristi Burton, sponsor of the measure, continues her inane defense of it. Hoover reports in his first article:

"The governor's position directly contradicts the overwhelming modern scientific evidence that now recognizes what we all know in our hearts," said Kristi Burton, who sponsored Amendment 48, "from the moment of conception, a new unique individual has been created."

Notice that Burton often throws around claims about "modern scientific evidence," on the pretense that the measure somehow reaches beyond religious faith. Yet there is no substance whatsoever to her claims about "science," as Diana and I explain (see pages 11-13 of the paper). To briefly summarize, a "unique individual" fertilized egg is still not a person, as (besides the fact that it is only a microscopic clump of cells) it is wholly contained within and dependent upon the woman's body.

At least Burton distinguishes between her cart and her horse. Science, allegedly, merely "recognizes what we all know in our hearts" -- that is, what her religious faith has already asserted.

As if we needed any more lessons regarding the dangers of pandering to faith-based politics, two letters in the Rocky Mountain News also point to the problem. On September 22, I wrote, "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...'"

Sure enough, on October 8 Mary Lou Fenton replied:

Read further in your Bible and you will find Psalms 139:13-16:

"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. . . .

"All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be."

This is a very clear pronouncement of a divine creator who gives us life and knows us intimately. An incredible truth that invests each life with meaning, value and purpose.

There can be no doubt: Amendment 48 is a prime example of faith-based politics, the attempt to impose religious dogma by force of law and to criminally prosecute those who violate that dogma.

McNeil made essentially the same mistake that Ritter made. Rather than try to undermine Amendment 48 with his own assertions of religious faith, the governor of Colorado should boldly declare his support for the separation of church and state.

Rocky Recycles Burton's Evasions on Amendment 48

On September 19, the Pagosa Daily Post published an op-ed by Kristi Burton that was filled with distortions and evasions. I replied. Then, on September 25, The Denver Post published the same op-ed. That didn't surprise me, because nobody can actually sustain an argument in favor of Amendment 48. But it did surprise me that the Rocky Mountain News published virtually the same op-ed yesterday; usually the papers try not to publish the same pieces.

My previous reply answers Burton's main points. However, given the widespread distribution of her piece, I thought I'd extend my reply here.

Burton writes: "Let me make it clear: Amendment 48 is about empowering you, the voter."

Note that that's her leading argument. And it's completely meaningless. Every ballot measure "is about empowering you, the voter," to decide the measure. But in a deeper sense, it is not about "empowering" the voter, for there is no such thing. Rather, it is about empowering those with the faith-based view that a fertilized egg is a person to impose their police state on the rest of us.

To reiterate, Amendment 48 would ban all abortions except perhaps to save the woman's life. It would force women to carry their pregnancies to term even in cases of rape, incest, fetal deformity, and health risks (and obviously in cases in which the woman decides she is unprepared to bear a child). It would necessitate criminal penalties -- perhaps including the death penalty if current statutes remain in force -- for abortion. It would ban practically all fertility treatments. It would ban the birth-control pill, IUD, and other forms of birth control. For details, see "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life" by Diana Hsieh and me.

Burton writes, "It's about allowing the democratic process to make decisions that have been made by special-interest groups for the last 40 years while using your taxes for their own gain."

This is ridiculous. These "decisions" have been made individually by millions of women and their partners, the Supreme Court, and various politicians and activists. True, some tax dollars have gone to Planned Parenthood, which I oppose (because I oppose the transfer of tax dollars for any health-related expense). But obviously that issue is separable from the matter of abortion. (This should serve as a warning to the left, however: if you keep begging for tax funds, you keep giving the religious right more opportunities to control the funded organizations.)

Burton claims she wants to ensure "our laws are built on honest premises." That's a laugh; she lies in the same op-ed by claiming the "Personhood Amendment doesn't change the constitution in any way." That line remains inexcusable (and I'm frankly amazed that the state's major newspapers have let her get away with the obvious distortion). Amendment 48 is a constitutional amendment.

Burton writes:

The words we choose matter. Mendez continually referred to newly formed persons as "fertilized eggs." This is a familiar strategy. In the same way, there's a reason why abortion proponents use the term "pro-choice." It shifts the debate away from the ugly reality of abortion. The repeated use of the term "fertilized egg" robs the developing human of personhood, just as the word "fetus" dehumanizes a developing baby.

There's a reason why opponents of Amendment 48 use the term "fertilized egg." The reason is that Amendment 48 itself uses that language. Amendment 48 would add the following new section to the state's 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."

At least Burton grants that she wants to outlaw "abortion" of a fertilized egg even before it implants in the uterus, the usual marker of pregnancy.

Burton commits the same fallacy of which she accuses her opponents. She calls a fertilized egg a "person," as if that arbitrary definition alone can carry the debate. The difference is that she has never offered a single, coherent argument as to why a fertilized egg is a person.

By contrast, Diana Hsieh and I offer a detailed argument as to why it's not. So it's correct to refer to a "fertilized egg" as a "fertilized egg," but it is wrong to refer to it as a "person," as Burton does.

But Burton doesn't have any actual arguments to back up her position, she just has faith. She can't even be bothered to discuss most of the measure's implications.

Some weeks ago, I suggested to a friend a set of questions that I wish Burton would answer. Perhaps in a future op-ed, she'll address these points. I'll not hold my breath. Here are the questions:

1. Do you believe that the birth-control pill or IUD may prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus?

2. Do you believe that the birth-control pill, IUD, or any other form of birth control should be banned?

3. At what risk to the woman's life, if any, do you believe an abortion should be legal, and who should be the final authority in deciding such matters? (Note: Burton has granted that she would allow abortion if otherwise the mother certainly would die, but she still needs to address the real issue of what to do about weighing uncertain risks and health problems that are not immediately life-threatening.)

4. Do you believe that in vitro fertilization that may result in destroyed or frozen embryos should be banned?

5. What criminal penalty do you believe is appropriate for women who get abortions? What about their doctors?

6. Do you believe that women should be forced to carry to term fetuses known to suffer Down Syndrome or other serious health problems?

7. Do you believe that abortion should be completely banned in cases of rape and incest?

8. Do you believe that all stem-cell medical research should be banned?

9. Why do you believe that a fertilized egg is a person (as opposed to "life" or something that contains human DNA)?

Hsieh Deciphers Amendment 48 Polls

Diana Hsieh issued the following media release today. I'll have some comments of my own about the recent polls in the near future.

MEDIA RELEASE: COALITION FOR SECULAR GOVERNMENT

Nearly 40% of Colorado Voters Seek to Destroy Reproductive Rights

Sedalia, Colorado / October 7, 2008

Contact: Diana Hsieh, co-author of "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life" and founder of the Coalition for Secular Government [omitted]

A poll of likely voters shows strong support for Amendment 48, the ballot measure that would grant the full legal rights of persons to fertilized eggs. The survey, conducted on September 28th by Rasmussen Reports with 500 likely voters, shows that 39% plan to vote for the measure, 50% to vote against it, while 11% are unsure. (See http://tinyurl.com/4huary.)

Such strong support for Amendment 48 should surprise anyone familiar with the barrage of criticism published in Colorado media in recent weeks. Critics of the measure have warned voters of its destructive effects on Colorado's laws if passed and enforced. They have shown that it would usher in a near-total ban on abortion, outlaw the birth control pill and in vitro fertilization, and subject pregnant women to police controls. Yet these latest poll results are basically unchanged from a June poll, also by Rasmussen. (See http://tinyurl.com/4mm59r.)

Diana Hsieh, founder of the Coalition for Secular Government and co-author of "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life," argues that the broad support for Amendment 48 is driven by a deeply-held faith pretending to be "pro-life."

The most recent Rasmussen poll showed that 41% of Colorado voters believe that "life begins at conception." That number explains the strong support for Amendment 48, despite the media barrage against it. "People who endorse that slogan regard a fertilized egg as a new, whole person with a right to life," Hsieh said. "They regard the enormous sacrifices forced on real men and women by the measure as insignificant -- or even ennobling. Their vote is based on faith, without regard to the real-world requirements of human life and happiness. It's not 'pro-life' at all."

"To effectively combat measures like Amendment 48, the whole 'pro-life' ideology must be challenged at its root," Hsieh said. "A mushy slogan like 'it simply goes too far' is unconvincing, even misleading. It doesn't speak to the fundamental dispute. Worse, it suggests that some compromise -- like banning most abortions -- would be acceptable."

"Instead, reproductive rights must be defended on principle, based on the objective facts of human nature. With regard to abortion, the fact is that a fetus or embryo is only a potential person so long as encased within and dependent on the woman. Once born, the infant is a new individual person with the right to life. That view ought to be the basis for the laws of a
free society. Any alternative -- any attempt to grant rights to the embryo or fetus -- would violate the rights of pregnant women."

For a principled defense of reproductive rights, see the Coalition for Secular Government's issue paper, "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters That a Fertilized Egg Is Not a Person," available at http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf, particularly the section "Personhood and the Right to Abortion," pages 10-13.

State Senator Greg Brophy Endorses Amendment 48

In a recent e-mail, State Senator Greg Brophy writes:

Amendment 48 Yes – Ignore all the hype over this one, it is really a straightforward question. Should all abortions except those where the life of the mother is threatened be banned in Colorado? That is what A48 really does and it is purposefully written to challenge Roe v. Wade. It doesn’t ban contraception, it does ban RU 486, and it would raise a due process question in those rare pregnancies where the life of the mother is at stake. In those cases, the unborn baby would be represented in a court action as well as the mother.

At least Brophy is forthright about some of the implications regarding the measure. As Diana Hsieh and I write in "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life," the measure is indeed intended to overturn Roe v. Wade and outlaw abortion in Colorado -- even in cases of rape, incest, fetal deformity, and health risks. Brophy also admits that the life of the egg/embryo/fetus would be weighed against the life of the mother. Legal action could prevent or delay an abortion from proceeding in cases of health risks -- causing the deaths of some women. Doctors who performed an abortion over health concerns also could face "court action" -- i.e., criminal prosecution -- preventing treatment in some cases and causing the deaths of some women.

While Brophy doesn't come right out and say it, he believes some women should die in order to legally protect fertilized eggs as "persons."

Laughably, on his web page Brophy claims to endorse "Limited government" and "Personal responsibility." Exactly how is subjecting women and their doctors to "court action" for health-related (or any) abortions -- thereby using government force to kill some women -- an instance of "limited government?" Brophy, along with many other Colorado Republicans, have proven that they are mortal enemies of individual rights.

I sent Brophy the following question via e-mail:

In a recent e-mail, you state that Amendment 48 "doesn’t ban contraception." However, a popular birth-control pill says right in its prescription literature that it can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. Do you believe that the pill or IUD can do that? If so, do you advocate a ban on those forms of birth control? (Yes, I intend to publicize your answer.)

I referred him to pages 3-5 of the paper.

When Brophy encourages voters to "Ignore all the hype," he is asking them to ignore some of the real legal implications of Amendment 48 and impose religious dogma through force of law.

Burton Continues to Dodge Amendment 48 Implications

Kristi Burton has been tight-lipped about the legal implications of Amendment 48. She's admitted she wants to ban "abortion on demand," but she hasn't discussed related issues, such as criminal penalties, birth control, and fertilization treatments.

At least she has offered one more minor detail about her take on the measure:

"Doctors should be able to decide which life they can save," she said. "If she were to die, the baby would die, too. It should be up to the mother and family and the doctor to save the life that can be saved instead of letting both die."

But that statement is hardly revealing. Burton again dodges the real questions.

Obviously, if the pregnant woman and the egg/embryo/fetus certainly would die without treatment, saving one "person" is better than losing two. But medical choices rarely involve such clear-cut risks.

Notably, Burton outright admits that it might be possible to save the fetus and kill the woman. Is that not the meaning of the statement, "Doctors should be able to decide which life they can save"? If a fertilized egg is arbitrarily declared a person, legally its life must be weighed against the life of the pregnant woman.

According to some opponents of abortion, not even an ectopic pregnancy necessarily threatens the very life of the mother. See page 10 of the paper by Diana Hsieh and me. In other cases, such as cancer treatment, the mother wouldn't necessarily die prior to child birth, so her ability to get treatment would depend also on its impact on the egg/embryo/fetus.

The upshot is that doctors would be legally bound -- subject to criminal prosecution -- to weigh the life of the fertilized egg against the life of the woman, in all cases in which death of the woman were not a certainty. Because such decisions would be second-guessed by prosecutors and the courts, doctors often would err on the side of inaction. The inevitable result would be more deaths of women. As Diana and I summarize, "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life."

Kristi Burton's Gospel of Jesus Christ

Kristi Burton sometimes tries to pretend that Amendment 48, defining a fertilized egg as a person, is about science. But such arguments are laughable. Elsewhere she reveals her real agenda: to impose her religious dogma by force of law.

Westword reveals a bit more about Burton's background:

At seventeen, Burton began taking classes through Oak Brook College of Law and Government, an online law school whose mission is "to train individuals who desire to advance the gospel of Jesus Christ through service as advocates of truth, counselors of reconciliation, and ministers of justice in the fields of law and government policy." (Oak Brook students are also encouraged to "rely upon the indwelling Holy Spirit to give them the power to develop within them Christ-like character qualities.")

Assuming Burton takes Oak Brook's advice to heart, she believes she is inhabited by a ghost that tells her to ban abortion. These "ministers of justice" threaten to unleash profoundly unjust laws.

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.

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.

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

"Pro-Life As Any Candidate Can Be"

Sarah Palin, John McCain's running mate, is as "pro-life as any candidate can be," Fox News reports. However, as Diana Hsieh and I have pointed out, the allegedly "pro-life" position, which would grant full legal rights to fertilized eggs for reasons of religious faith, is in fact profoundly anti-life. I didn't need any additional reasons not to vote for McCain, but his selection of Palin reaffirms some of the reasons I've already given.

The religious right is ecstatic, as The New York Times reports:

Social conservatives were relieved and highly pleased.

"They're beyond ecstatic," said Ralph Reed, the former head of the Christian Coalition. "This is a home run. She is a reformer governor who is solidly pro-life and a person of deep Christian faith. And she is really one of the bright shining new stars in the Republican firmament."

Ms. Palin is known to conservatives for choosing not to have an abortion after learning two years ago that she was carrying a child with Down's syndrome. "It is almost impossible to exaggerate how important that is to the conservative faith community," Mr. Reed said.

Obviously, a Down's baby is precious to his mother and has the same legal rights as anyone else. The choice properly belongs to the woman whether to bring a fetus with Down's to term. However, given the severe problems associated with the disease, and the possibility of detecting it early in a pregnancy with modern medicine, certainly it is perfectly moral for a woman to get an abortion under such tragic circumstances. But apparently the religious right grants Palin some sort of special moral status for having a Down's baby, as though tragedy and suffering itself were the mark of goodness and political competence.

I don't think McCain's pick is going to do what he hopes it will do. If anything, it will drive Hillary's supporters to more loyal support of Obama. And it will only further alienate independents and secularist Republicans, who are growing increasingly weary of faith-based politics.

Hsieh's Warning for Democrats

Diana Hsieh has been busy promoting the Coalition for Secular Government. A few days ago, her letter appeared in the Rocky Mountain News; it is a needed warning for Democrats as they converge in the state:

The First Amendment of the Constitution upholds freedom of religion as absolute. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, it builds "a wall of separation between church and state."

For the past 30 years, that wall has been under attack from the religious right via "intelligent design," "faith-based initiatives" and now Colorado's own "definition of a person" amendment.

Alarmingly, Democrats are jumping on the faith-powered bandwagon. A powerful religious left is emerging within the Democratic Party, determined to entangle politics and religion. The ideal espoused by John F. Kennedy that the religious views of a politician should be "his own private affair" is dying.

Democrats, religious or not, must speak out for freedom of religion. If they don't, their party will soon be in the iron grip of savvy Christian evangelicals, just like today's Republican Party.

Thankfully, Colorado Democrats such as Mark Udall have endorsed the separation of church and state. That is a major reason why Colorado Democrats routinely beat the hell out of Republicans.

God: The Ultimate Abortionist

Amendment 48 would define a fertilized egg as a person in Colorado's constitution. The presumption behind this initiative is that God infuses a fertilized egg with a soul, so it's immoral for a woman to choose to abort it. There's just one little problem with this view; as Pamela White writes in her outstanding overview of the implications of 48:

[A]bout 30 to 70 percent of the time, the fertilized egg fails to implant and is flushed from the woman's body during her next menstrual period without her ever knowing about it. This is not considered a miscarriage because the egg never implanted and never initiated the physical changes of pregnancy.

Those who want to ban all abortions and the birth-control pill (which prevents implantation of a fertilized egg) believe that it's God's will whether a sperm enters an egg and the egg implants. In other words, according to the assumptions of the Amendment 48 crowd, God commits abortion in 30-70 percent of all cases of fertilization.

"Abortionist" is the smear term used by anti-abortion zealots against doctors who perform abortions. But God is the ultimate abortionist, having performed (I'm guessing) millions of times more abortions than all "abortionist" doctors combined. Anti-abortion zealots routinely refer to abortion as a "holocaust." Then what is it that God is perpetrating?

This points to a deeper problem with this sort of theology. The point of ethics, so goes this line of thought, is to conform our will to God's will. The reason not to murder is that God said so. But if God says to kill your own son, then it would be immoral to refuse. Similarly, God allegedly says that having an abortion is wrong. But if God wants to abort 30-70 percent of all fertilized eggs, then that's perfectly fine. What matters is conformity to God's will, in this view.

This points to the ultimate irony of the anti-abortion crusade. A big part of that movement is a criticism of moral subjectivism at the personal level. But barely beneath the surface of these religious beliefs is moral subjectivism at the supernatural level. Morality is what God says it is, end of story.

What's needed is neither personal subjectivism nor supernatural subjectivism, but an objective morality rooted in the facts of human life.

The Faith-Based Welfare Debate

The New York Times has reviewed the presidential debate over faith-based welfare (via Politics Without God).

On one side of the debate, Obama fully supports faith-based welfare, but he thinks recipients of the funds should not be able to discriminate in hiring on the basis of religion:

Mr. Obama’s position that religious organizations would not be able to consider religion in their hiring for such programs would constitute a deal-breaker for many evangelicals, said several evangelical leaders, who represent a political constituency Mr. Obama has been trying to court.

"For those of who us who believe in protecting the integrity of our religious institutions, this is a fundamental right," said Richard Cizik, vice president for governmental affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals. "He's rolling back the Bush protections. That's extremely disappointing."

You mean if churches line up for handouts of forcibly transfered wealth, they have to jump through political hoops? Who'd have imagined?

Churches do not have a "fundamental right" to spend tax dollars free of political oversight. However, individuals do have a fundamental right not to finance religious organizations as a matter of freedom of conscience and property rights.

On the other side of the debate, McCain fully supports faith-based welfare, but he thinks recipients of the funds should not be subject to national hiring guidelines: "A McCain campaign spokesman, Brian Rogers, said Mr. McCain 'disagrees with Senator Obama that hiring at faith-based groups should be subject to government oversight.'"

Some readers might have noticed that both sides of the debate are saying very nearly the same thing.

The only person quoted by the article articulating the alternative of liberty is the Reverend Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who told the Times, "It ought to be shut down, not continued."

Amen, brother.

Obama Likes Faith-Based Welfare

Citing the AP, Mark Wolf notes that Obama likes Bush's faith-based welfare so much that he wants to expand it.

Obama (citing Wolf citing Politico) said:

I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don't believe this partnership will endanger that idea -- so long as we follow a few basic principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them -- or against the people you hire -- on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we'll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work.

It is morally wrong to force people to transfer their resources to religious organizations, regardless of how those groups use the money, whether they "proselytize" with the money (though it's impossible to avoid), and whether their "programs" work (according to some federal bureaucrat).

And it's as disturbing as it is predictable that Bush's religious-right welfare program, designed to pander to that group, has been gleefully picked up by the Democrats. The GOP keeps thinking it can out-welfare the left, but, somehow, it keeps not working out that way.

McCain's Evangelical Problem

Bill Bunkley is concerned that, by failing to rally his religious-right base, McCain risks leaving them at home on election day. Obama, on the other hand, is actively pursuing evangelical voters, Bunkley notes.

But there is a little problem with Bunkley's analysis. Obama is pro-choice, while McCain holds "ending abortion" as his ultimate goal. Thus, while Obama, who has openly endorsed the separation of church and state, can court evangelicals without scaring the hell out of everybody else, McCain cannot.

A recent poll asked people whether they believe "Abortion should be legal and solely up to the woman to decide." The percent in agreement is 35 for evangelicals, 60 for "Mainline Protestants," and 51 for Catholics.

Meanwhile, Bunkley cites a report from Pew indicating, "White evangelical Protestants... [make] up over one-third of those who identify with the GOP and vote for its candidates."

In other words, McCain can pander to the religious-right third of his base and (further) alienate the "libertarian" right and most independents, while Obama can court the Christian vote -- including the third of evangelicals who support legal abortion -- without alienating anybody.

The Republican Party is stuck. It can't win with the religious right, and perhaps it can't win without it (especially with candidates who also trash the First Amendment and call for sacrifice to the collective). As I've suggested, the only way forward I can see is a new coalition of civil libertarians of the classic left and modern right, free marketeers (of the Austrian and Chicago schools), and free traders of the left. Basically, we need a new liberty coalition.

The Faith-Based Politics of Abortion

A recent spat between Barack Obama and James Dobson offers a good opportunity to further reply to Colorado Right to Life and Bob Kyffin on abortion.

Here's what Barack Obama said on June 28, 2006, in his "Call to Renewal" address:

Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

I have expressed the same view on this web page. Note that Obama in fact holds a "pro-choice position."

The problem is that nobody has made an effective, non-religious argument for banning abortion. Instead, Colorado Right to Life (and the Republican candidates who signed its questionnaire) explicitly invoke God's will as the foundation of their position.

Now Dobson of Focus on the Family has attacked Obama's stance, saying, according to the AP, "Am I required in a democracy to conform my efforts in the political arena to his bloody notion of what is right with regard to the lives of tiny babies? What he's trying to say here is unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe."

Notably, Dobson is misrepresenting Obama's position. Obama did not claim that people must conform their views to what "everybody agrees" is correct; instead, he said people should make "universal" arguments "subject to argument, and amenable to reason."

Dobson's dilemma is that no reasonable argument supports the definition of a fertilized egg as a person or the prohibition of abortion. Thus, his only option is to "evoke God's will."

As if to further illustrate the point, Bob Kyffin sent in a reply to my criticism of his statements (stemming from my critique of Colorado Right to Life). Kyffin attempts to make a universal, reasonable argument in favor of banning abortion, but his argument completely fails.

Kyffin argues that an embryo, and even a feritlized egg, is a person because, first, "life begins at conception," and, second, a fertilized egg has "its own DNA" that dictates many of the egg's future traits, if brought to term.

Life not only begins at conception but precedes conception. Both the sperm and egg are living human entities. But not all living human entities are people. As I've mentioned, every cell in our bodies is a living human entity. Every cell is alive, and every cell contains human DNA. Yet Kyffin would hardly argue that we're committing mass murder every time we take a shower and exfoliate thousands of living, human cells.

Obviously, the mere fact that a fertilized egg contains human DNA does not qualify it for personhood for the same basic reason.

The difference that Kyffin seems to be going for, then, is that a fertilized egg, unlike a lone sperm or egg cell or a skin cell, has the capacity, if attached in a specific way to a healthy female uterus, to develop into an embryo, then a fetus, and finally into a born human being (a person). (We'll leave aside the complication that it's now possible to develop a new, independent human being from the DNA of any living human cell.)

But the fact that a fertilized egg has the capacity (in a certain environment) to develop into a person does not imply that the fertilized egg is itself a person. A fertilized egg has none of the relevant features of personhood, other than human DNA. It has no organs, cannot survive independently, etc. It is utter lunacy to call a fertilized egg a person. Kyffin might as well argue that an oak tree is a house, a field of grass a beef steak, or a silk worm a fine suit, because in each case the first thing has the capacity to develop into the second.

A necessary condition for personhood is the ability to survive independently, without any direct nourishment from the body of another. A newborn baby obviously needs a caregiver to provide food, warmth, etc. But a newborn baby is dramatically different than a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus, in that the newborn baby is an independent entity that will continue to live on its own if left by itself. A fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus physically cannot leave the mother without physical removal, and, until lates stages, if left on its own it will quickly die. A fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus is radically dependent on its mother's physical body, whereas a newborn is not.

This radical, physical dependency is a large part of the reason why a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus does not have the rights of personhood. One implication of this is that a pregnant woman has the right to get an abortion. As I've said, a woman who has decided to get an abortion is morally bound to get it in the early term whenever feasible. However, even in very-late term pregnancies, in any conflict between the safety of the mother and the safety of the fetus, the mother has every moral right to protect her own life. (She is also properly free to accept increased risk to herself in order to protect the fetus.)

Those who oppose abortion typically invoke the horrors of gratuitous, late-term abortions in order to advocate the prohibition of abortion even of a fertilized egg. But gratuitous, late-term abortions are practically non-existent. Practically all abortions occur in the early terms.

For what it's worth, here's what Roe v. Wade has to say on the matter: "State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother."

Generally, I oppose restrictions even for late-term abortions, because the practical effect would be to intimidate doctors with zealous prosecution, thereby interfering with their considerations of the "life or health of the mother."

The essential debate, though, is over abortion in the early terms. Kyffin and Colorado Right to Life (CRTL) hold that a fertilized egg is a person and therefore should be granted full rights.

As I have argued, one obvious implication of the view that a fertilized egg is a person is that doctors would be legally required (or at least bullied) into sacrificing the lives of some women. CRTL's position is thus morally abhorrent.

At some level, CRTL seems to be aware that its position is horrific, or at least at odds with the common decency of most people. And so CRTL has tried to create an escape clause. As I've explained:

CRTL uses the same sleight of rhetoric. Recall that the position of CRTL is that "It is... wrong... to kill the baby to save the mother." CRTL opposes "the intentional killing of the unborn child, for the life of the mother." CRTL states, "When the mother's life is seriously threatened by a pregnancy, of course it is morally justified to deliver the baby but not if the intention is to kill the baby. ... If the baby dies, it is a tragedy; if the baby is intentionally killed, it is murder."

CRTL's position doesn't hold up for early-term pregnancies. "Delivering" an unformed embryo will kill it. Yet the only way that CRTL can preserve its stance that a fertilized egg is a person and still allow doctors to save the life of the mother is to pretend that "delivery" of an unformed embryo to death is somehow different than intentionally killing it. ...

So long as CRTL clings to the faith-based fantasy that a fertilized egg is a person, the group has only two paths. Either it can openly acknowledge that it would sometimes sacrifice the lives of women, or it can allow women to get abortions whenever they see any risk to their lives. This second path, however, is inconsistent with CRTL's position that "It is... wrong... to kill the baby to save the mother."

CRTL's escape clause doesn't work. If a doctor removes an embryo, the embryo will certainly die. (I'm leaving aside test-tube scenarios.) Any early-term abortion, for whatever reason, is an intentional act that necessarily results in the death of the embryo.

Yet Kyffin tries to exploit the same absurd escape clause:

...CRTL says, "if the baby dies, it is a tragedy; if the baby is intentionally killed, it is murder." The result may be the same. The intent is clearly different. There is a distinct and critical difference between the unfortunate death of a baby whose life could not be saved, in the course of protecting the mother, and the situation where a doctor goes in and intentionally kills the baby when it is not necessary. In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, there is a (presumably) 0% chance of the baby surviving, and that is unfortunate. And yet, CRTL would support a surgery to protect the mother, so long as there is no malicious intent in the doctor’s mind to intentionally kill the baby. ... Since the baby needs the mother to survive, then of course CRTL would support taking such actions to preserve her life, even if it may mean the death of the baby...

I note my objection to referring to a fertilized egg or undeveloped embryo as a "baby," as the term wrongly implies personhood. Also, Kyffin is not, so far as I am aware, an authorized spokesperson for CRTL, so I will treat his comments as one possible interpretation of CRTL's stated positions.

Kyffin's intentionality argument is absurd (and could be taken as a reductio ad absurdum of his premise that a fertilized egg is a person). True, intention is an element of a criminal act. For example, one who intentionally fires a bullet into an innocent person is a murderer, while one who thoughtlessly fires a bullet over a crowd and strikes an innocent party has committed manslaughter but not (intentional) murder. But the idea that a doctor might remove a fertilized egg "to protect the mother," without having the intention to kill the fertilized egg, is laughable.

Here's an analogy. Let's say one of the Inquisition's torturers were brought up on charges according to modern law. If the torturer said, "Look, I didn't have the intention of inflicting pain on the victim; I had only the intention of saving the victim's soul, as well as the souls of observers," that obviously wouldn't fly. The pain was an obvious and necessary result of the torture; it was intentional. According to CRTL's premise that a fertilized egg is a person, a doctor who removes a fertilized egg, causing its death but not "intending" its death, should be just as guilty as the torturer. Given that CRTL's premise is ridiculous, the doctor is morally blameless.

I wish to stress that my case for legal abortion does not rest upon the fact that, if a fertilized egg were legally defined as a person and given full legal protection as such, the result would be the deaths of innocent women. It is true that CRTL's policies, if fully enforced, would kill women. However, even if by some stroke of a magic wand this were not the case, abortion should still remain legal, based on a woman's right to control her body. However, the fact that CRTL's policy would kill women, coupled with the fact that CRTL attempts to evade this fact, helps to demonstrate the weakness of CRTL's case.

There is no reason, no argument, no universal moral case that supports the notion that a fertilized egg is a person. The contrary claim can come only from faith, the belief that God said so. Such faith-based legal policies have no place in a free society.

Schizophrenic Republicans

The May 31 resolutions of the Colorado Republican State Convention illustrate the difficulties and tensions of the party.

Included are the pro-liberty:

2. [T]he United States will pay any price, bear any burden... to assure the survival of our republic and freedom.

4. [T]he practice of inserting earmarks into the federal budget [should] be eliminated.

18. ...Colorado Republicans support the 2nd Amendment right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

32. ...Colorado citizens [should] be free to choose their own health care and health insurance and not be required to participate in any particular health care program.

33. ...Colorado Republicans oppose all single-payer health care systems.

35. ...Colorado Republicans oppose governmental taking of private property for the benefit of private individuals, private entitites, or for governmental revenue enhancement.

Unfortunately, Colorado Republicans often are wishy-washy in their support of liberty. For example, while they opposed single-payer medicine, and while I'm pleased with their statement about choice, they hardly articulated the need to defend individual rights and free markets in medicine.

The third point pertains to a "balanced federal budget." That's great, but the central issue is not budgetary balance, but budgetary control. I'd rather see Congress spend half of what it does today and still run a deficit, than spend even more and confiscate the difference.

Points 11-17 denounce illegal immigrants, except fourteen calls for "a well-regulated guest worker program." Absent is any call to restore liberty in immigration.

Points 19, 20, 22, and 23 pertain to church/state issues. (Point 21 is omitted; I wonder what it said?) The big one is that Colorado Republicans believe "that life begins at conception." Of course nobody actually doubts that; conception is the union of two living cells. But this is euphemism for alleging that personhood begins at conception, as Colorado's Amendment 48 asserts.

Colorado Republicans want to overturn Roe v. Wade, eliminate "public funds for destructive embryonic stem-cell research" (calls for an outright ban are noticeably absent), and restrict "marriage" to a man and woman.

These points show that Colorado Republicans are trying to walk the line. They say that "life" begins at conception, but they don't say that they want to prohibit all abortions. They say they don't want tax funding of embryonic stem-cell research, but they're silent on the issue of bans. They want to overturn the federal court rulings on abortion, but they don't say whether they want to leave the issue to states or allow federal prohibitions. They define marriage but don't mention domestic partnerships.

The result is to simultaneously pander to and insult the religious right, while convincing everyone else that Republicans remain the party of the religious right.

Meanwhile, the Democrats endorse the separation of church and state (at least as a rule) as they work to place ever greater portions of the economy under political control.

Wouldn't it be nice if some major force in either of the parties called for liberty across the board?

Reply to Kyffin on Abortion

Yesterday I strongly criticized Colorado Right to Life (CRTL) for promoting the prohibition of abortion even of fertilized eggs and even in cases of rape and risk to the life of the mother.

Bob Kyffin offered several arguments in reply. However, he did not address the central point: a fertilized egg is not a person, as CRTL claims. Kyffin states:

Is there ever a case where slavery should be allowed? Ever a case when a Jew should be allowed to be killed? Never.

And there should never be a reason to take the life of an innocent human being...

Nobody doubts the evils of slavery or murder. But a fertilized egg is just not a human being (a person). It is alive, and it has human DNA, but so does every cell in our bodies. It is a potential human being, but a potential person is not a person.

The overwhelming majority of abortions occur in early stages of pregnancy, when the embryo is barely developed and still only a potential human person. As a matter of ethics, women who get abortions should do so in the early stages whenever feasible. (As a matter of ethics, people should have sex responsibly and take reasonable steps to avoid unwanted pregnancy.) Individual rights apply only to actual people, individuals who live a "biologically independent existence" (in Diana Hsieh's words.)

As a matter of rights, women have the right to get an abortion for whatever reason they deem fit. This is true even if some women get abortions for bad reasons or come to regret them. Similarly, women have the right to decide their sexual partners, even if some have sex for bad reasons or come to regret it.

A fertilized egg is not a person. An embryo is not a person. Neither Kyffin nor CRTL has offered any reason for thinking otherwise, beyond the pseudo-reason that God allegedly said so.

In his more specific arguments, Kyffin begins by addressing risks to the life of the mother:

They [CRTL] say you don't kill a baby to save the mother because it's a truism. It's never medically necessary to take active measures to kill the baby in order to preserve the mother's life. That's an abortionist's lie, and a popularly believed myth.

A Caesarian section is one of the safest and quickest medical procedures that exists. It takes 5 minutes, and if the baby is capable of living outside the womb, then she will live.

A late-term abortion, on the other hand, takes many hours, at the very least, and often takes days. If a woman's life is in danger, a doctor would be criminally incompetent to take the time to kill the baby before removing her, rather than simply delivering the baby alive.

A doctor should always try to save the life of the baby and the mother -- to do anything else is negligent.

Kyffin claims that in medical emergencies the interests of the mother and fetus usually coincide. This I do not doubt. However, it is not always the case, and unexpected emergencies late in pregnancy are not the only relevant cases. Doctors may know very early in the pregnancy that the mother would risk her life by carrying the embryo to term. Last November, I cited the case of a woman who died following an ectopic pregnancy. A woman might have any number of medical conditions that make pregnancy dangerous.

Kyffin fudges his case when he forbids only "active measures to kill the baby," adding that "if the baby is capable of living outside the womb, then she will live." That's a fairly big "if." Obviously, if a doctor removes an (early-stage) embryo, it's going to die. Kyffin's trick is to define "active measures" so narrowly that some cases of intentionally killing the embryo are discounted.

CRTL uses the same sleight of rhetoric. Recall that the position of CRTL is that "It is... wrong... to kill the baby to save the mother." CRTL opposes "the intentional killing of the unborn child, for the life of the mother." CRTL states, "When the mother's life is seriously threatened by a pregnancy, of course it is morally justified to deliver the baby but not if the intention is to kill the baby. ... If the baby dies, it is a tragedy; if the baby is intentionally killed, it is murder."

CRTL's position doesn't hold up for early-term pregnancies. "Delivering" an unformed embryo will kill it. Yet the only way that CRTL can preserve its stance that a fertilized egg is a person and still allow doctors to save the life of the mother is to pretend that "delivery" of an unformed embryo to death is somehow different than intentionally killing it.

In practice, though, medicine is often an art of managing risks. In many cases, a pregnancy will endanger the life of the mother somewhat. Only a certain fraction of dangerous pregnancies will result in the death of the mother. To flesh out its position, then, CRTL needs to specify when it's acceptable to risk the life of the mother. If the mother has a 40 percent chance of dying and a 60 percent chance of carrying the embryo to term, must the government force the woman and her doctor to continue the pregnancy?

So long as CRTL clings to the faith-based fantasy that a fertilized egg is a person, the group has only two paths. Either it can openly acknowledge that it would sometimes sacrifice the lives of women, or it can allow women to get abortions whenever they see any risk to their lives. This second path, however, is inconsistent with CRTL's position that "It is... wrong... to kill the baby to save the mother." And the first path is horrific.

Next Kyffin addresses the issue of rape:

On the subject of rape babies, surveys show that most victims of rape or incest want to keep their babies. The ones who don't keep their baby often regret it for the rest of their lives. An abortion simply re-victimizes the young girl.

Abortion for rape and incest also hides the crime from authorities (abortionists NEVER report underage pregnancies, even when they suspect rape -- this is WELL documented). The rapist is free to rape the same girl again, and again, without his wife (the girl's mother) or whoever else knowing about it.

The issue of documentation and protection of underage victims is distinct from the issue of abortion (though I doubt Kyffin's claim that abortion clinics "never" report rapes to the police). Obviously the issue is wider than underage pregnancy (though I don't know what percentage of pregnancies caused by rape involve minors).

Regardless of what the surveys say, the matter is not properly up for vote. Even if "most" women want to carry embryos resulting from rape to term, some do not, and they have the right to get an abortion. I do not doubt that many women regret getting an abortion, just as many do not, and many would have regretted not getting an abortion. But that's beside the point. It's the government's job to protect people's rights -- in this case, the rights of women -- not play psychoanalyst and protect people from their own choices as evaluated by the religious right. (The broader point is that the government should fight rape.) Besides, according to CRTL's premises, even if all raped women who became pregnant wanted to get an abortion and none regretted it, CRTL would still wish to prohibit all abortions, so Kyffin's argument seems misplaced.

Nothing Kyffin has written mitigates the fact that CRTL wants to grant a fertilized egg the full legal rights of a person, force women to bring pregnancies to term against their will, prohibit valuable medical research, force women to have the babies of rapists, and sacrifice the lives of some unwilling women in order to save embryos. Those who actually respect life must reject CRTL's faith-based politics.

Colorado Right to Death

The ludicrously named Colorado Right to Life (CRTL) openly admits that its policies would endanger the lives of women. It demands that Republican candidates work to outlaw abortion even in cases of rape. And it declares its commitment to faith-based politics, noting that Amendment 48, the "personhood" initiative that seeks to define a fertilized egg as a person, would allegedly "uphold God's enduring command."

Today I also discussed the politics of the situation; here I address the ideology, as detailed in the "CRTL 2008 Candidate Questionnaire."

Following are several of the group's questions:

Do you advocate that the government uphold the God-given, inalienable Right to Life for the unborn?

Do you agree that abortion is always wrong, even when the baby's father is a criminal (a rapist)? [See life-of-the mother note below.]

Do you support the 2008 Colorado Personhood amendment effort to define "person" to include any human being from the moment of fertilization?

Will you oppose any research or practice that would intentionally destroy the tiniest living humans (embryonic stem cell research)?

The group declares that, in the name of God, it desires to force women to have the babies of rapists, grant equal rights to fertilized eggs, and prohibit potentially life-saving medical research.

What about the mother's life?

When the mother's life is seriously threatened by a pregnancy, of course it is morally justified to deliver the baby but not if the intention is to kill the baby. When the life of the mother is at serious risk by her pregnancy, the goal must be to save the life of the mother and the baby if at all possible. It is just as wrong to kill the mother to save the baby, as it is to kill the baby to save the mother. "Legalizing" abortion, defined as the intentional killing of the unborn child, for the life of the mother leads to repugnant acts like emergency removal of late-term babies from the womb stopping midway in the procedure to kill the baby. If the baby dies, it is a tragedy; if the baby is intentionally killed, it is murder. If necessary to save the mom's life, the unborn baby could be delivered with the determination to care for both, and if possible, to save both the baby and mother!

Obviously, the best scenario is to save the mother and baby. However, when there is a conflict, CRTL is perfectly willing to sacrifice the mother, an actual human being, to an embryo, only a potential. Here is the key line: " It is... wrong... to kill the baby to save the mother."

Colorado Right to Life in fact endorses policies that would kill actual human beings. The group's alleged "right to life" means for some an obligation to die.

The organization makes clear that it does not merely wish to overturn Roe v. Wade and return the decision to the states, as so many Republicans declare:

Antonin Scalia has publicly stated that he would strike down any law that prohibited abortion in all fifty states, and Clarence Thomas has ruled that the public has the right to decide to legalize the killing of unborn children. Sadly, not even one of the seven current U.S. Supreme Court Justices nominated by Republican presidents support the right to life of the unborn.

Further, our pro-life presidents have nominated sixty percent of the U.S. federal judiciary, and yet the judiciary utterly rejects the right to life of the unborn. Also we should remember that the pro-abortion Roe v. Wade decision was written by a Republican Justice and passed by the Republican majority on the U.S. Supreme Court, and abortion was legalized in Colorado by Republican governor John Love in 1967.

Most Americans don't buy into CRTL's absurd, pro-death, faith-based agenda. The problem is that Americans are used to viewing everything through pragmatist eyes, so many can't understand that CRTL means it. They actually want to ban birth control that prevents a fertilized egg from growing. They actually want to force 13-year-old girls to bear the children of rapists. They actually want doctors to let women die if necessary to save the fetus. They are deadly serious. It is time for sensible Coloradans to take them at their word and reject their dogmatic agenda resoundingly.

Liggett, Hsieh Oppose 'Personhood' Amendment 48

Amendment 48, the Colorado ballot measure that seeks to define a fertilized egg as a person, has provoked passionate and reasoned opposition. The Denver Post recently published pieces by Gina Liggett and Diana Hsieh.

Liggett writes:

The Thomas More Law Center, which provides legal support for these groups, calls itself "the sword and shield for people of (Christian) faith" to fight for Christian values, which it claims are the foundation of our nation. Kristi Burton, the founder of CER, was quoted in denverpost.com (1-1/14/07) saying "we have God. And he is all we need." ...

If this barbaric "personhood" amendment passes, whose rights will prevail when a woman has a life-threatening ectopic pregnancy? Will a girl who's been raped be compelled against her will to carry a pregnancy resulting from that brutality? Will lawyers defending fertilized eggs argue that a miscarriage is a violation of an embryo's right to life, making a woman and her physician legally negligent? ... Many reliable birth control methods would have to be outlawed because they interfere with implantation of a fertilized egg. Couples unable to conceive would be forbidden to try in-vitro fertilization because some of the lab-created fertilized eggs are not used.

And Hsieh writes:

A woman's fundamental right to control her own body, including her right to terminate or sustain a pregnancy, should not depend on majority vote. This would violate that right in spades, based on the fantasy that an embryo is equal to an infant. It would force a woman to provide life support to any fertilized egg -- even at the risk of her life and health and even if ruinous to her goals and dreams.

Hsieh's letter appears with two others, one for and one against. The first refers to an alleged "impossibility to decide doctrinal merits," while the other states, without argument, "We believe that human life [a person] begins at conception." The first letter expresses skepticism, the second religion, while Hsieh's letter offers a positive moral theory based on the facts of reality and the requirements of human life. At least the debate over Amendment 48 takes us to fundamentals.

Personhood and Rights

In a comment to my recent post about Amendment 48, which would define a fertilized egg as a person, Jonathan Briggs writes:

Ignoring religion, let's use biology. It seems to me that we as a species, are wired to have an urge to protect women and children. Men are the expendable protectors of the future generations.

Just ask a group of people if it's a worse crime to punch a man, a woman, a pregnant woman, or a child.

The responses to that should come out that punching pregnant women and children is a worse crime than punching a man.

That tells us something. It seems that a pregnancy is valued almost equally to an actual child, even in the absence of religion. It's survival instinct wired by biology. Blaming religion and "evangelicals" for this is absurd.

The fact that we harshly condemn a criminal for harming a pregnant woman in no way implies that a fertilized egg is a person. I see no inherent problem with defining enhanced criminal penalties for harming a woman's embryo. That's not what Amendment 48 is about. Amendment 48 is about imposing criminal penalties on the woman (or her doctor) for harming her own fertilized egg. And that is a religiously motivated policy.

An embryo is a potential person, and that does matter very much to the mother who wants and expects to bear the child. A mother-to-be invests a great deal of emotional energy, physical preparation, and planning in her future child. Thus, someone who harms a pregnant woman harms not only the woman's health, but another dear value to her. Plus, usually it's possible to tell whether a woman is pregnant, so somebody who intentionally harms a pregnant woman is particularly nasty.

By analogy, if somebody intentionally broke the fingers of virtuoso piano player, we would condemn the perpetrator more harshly than had he simply punched a person in the face. That doesn't mean that a finger should be defined as a person, even though it is both human and alive.

'Personhood' Amendment Makes Ballot

Following is a media release from a group opposing the 'personhood' amendment, now known as Amendment 48. I've criticized the measure and discussed the politics surrounding it. Unfortunately, by claiming people must "agree to disagree" and that the measure is "not simple" but "extreme," the release fails to make the essential arguments: a fertilized egg is not, in fact, a person, and banning abortions would violate the rights and threaten the lives of actual people. Nevertheless, I'm glad that Coloradans are organizing to defeat the ghastly measure.

MEDIA RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE -- May 29, 2008
CONTACT -- Crystal Clinkenbeard

DENVER, CO -- May 29, 2008 - Today the Colorado Secretary of State ruled that backers of the "Definition of Person" amendment submitted enough valid signatures to qualify for the November ballot. Opposition group Protect Families Protect Choices (PFPC) issued the following statement in response:

"Vote No on Amendment 48, the so-called 'Definition of Person.' Accessible health care is tough enough for many people and their families," said Crystal Clinkenbeard, a spokesperson for opposition group PFPC. "This ballot measure threatens access to health care, birth control, infertility treatments, and medical research -- just to name a few."

"Amending the Colorado constitution is always serious business. Responsible government, allows us to appreciate and respect individual opinions. Sometimes people have to agree to disagree. Defining a fertilized egg as a 'person' in our Constitution and statutes is not scientifically based and simply makes bad public policy."

"The No on Amendment 48 Campaign wants voters to know this dangerous amendment is not simple: it is extreme. It threatens women's health care. It threatens lifesaving medical research. It threatens state laws and policies that refer to 'person' or 'people' -- the consequences of this constitutional change are unknown and dangerous and will affect hundreds if not thousands of laws within our state statues."

###
Contact Crystal Clinkenbeard, Protect Families Protect Choices Press Secretary... for more information or to schedule an interview.

Protect Families Protect Choices is a broad-based, bi-partisan coalition committed to defeating Amendment 48, the so-called "Definition of Person." It includes nurses, doctors, religious leaders, and health advocacy organizations. Learn more about Protect Families Protect Choices at www.protectfamiliesprotectchoice.org.

Romney Returns to Religion

After reviewing Mitt Romney's speech on faith and related comments, I concluded that "Romney has demonstrated that he wishes to sacrifice freedom to religion." Now Romney, who may still play some role in November's election, has returned to the topic.

Romney sensibly asserts that religious "non-believers have just as great a stake as believers in defending religious liberty. If a society takes it upon itself to prescribe and proscribe certain streams of belief -- to prohibit certain less-favored strains of conscience -- it may be the non-believer who is among the first to be condemned. A coercive monopoly of belief threatens everyone, whether we are talking about those who search the philosophies of men or follow the words of God."

However, Romney's characterization of atheists as "non-believers" rubs me the wrong way. I'm not fundamentally a "non-believer;" I'm a believer in human reason and objective morality based on human life, liberty, and happiness. Moreover, Romney's reference to a "coerciver monopoly" refers both to socialistic regimes and to theocratic ones. This undermines his subsequent statement that "freedom requires religion." Obviously, religion often has been hostile to freedom.

Romney quotes Jefferson regarding liberty as a "gift of God." But the key distinction is that liberty arises from our human nature, not from the arbitrary whim of some king or ruler. The "Creator" of the Bill of Rights need not be God (and for Jefferson it was not the Christian God). And Romney quotes John Adams to the effect that self-governance requires "morality and religion." Again, plenty of people with religion have not advocated self-governance; quite the opposite. An objective morality must be separated from religion, else it and freedom become arbitrary whims of some religious decree, rather than of some king. The United States arose not in the era of religion but in the era of the Enlightenment, when religion gave way to reason.

All of Romney's talk of "freedom" cannot erase the fact that he wants to reduce freedom by imposing faith-based political controls. Freedom of religion is essential, but it is meaningless without freedom of action within the context of individual rights.

And when Romney starts talking about "the holy sacrifice of young lives," he strays from the American ideal of self-defense, in which young lives are preserved to the greatest extent possible within the context of national security, and moves toward holy war, in which human life is sacrificed to religious causes.

Campaign Against 'Personhood' Amendment

I pass along the following media release as an item of interest.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, Tuesday, May 6, 2008

Campaign to Defeat So-Called "Personhood" Amendment Launched

DENVER (May 6) -- On Tuesday, May 6, a broad-based coalition of nurses, doctors, religious leaders, community groups and health care advocacy organizations launched the campaign to defeat the proposed so-called "Human Life Amendment."

"If passed, this amendment would permanently alter Colorado’s constitution and allow government intrusion into Coloradans' personal, private medical decisions," said Toni Panetta, spokesperson for Protect Families Protect Choices. "This dangerous and deceptive measure would lay the legal foundation to deny Coloradans the health care they need."

"As a physician, this proposed constitutional amendment really scares me," said Dr. Mary Fairbanks, a family physician who has practiced for more than 20 years. "'The moment of fertilization' is not a medical definition, and so defining a person in that way interferes with the practice of medicine. This proposed amendment jeopardizes women’s health and will interfere with my ability to treat my patients."

The change to Colorado's constitution as it relates to inalienable rights, due process and equality of justice could provide the legal foundation for the government to investigate women or their doctors in the event of a miscarriage. The supporter of a similar measure in Montana has said this type of amendment could be used to investigate women to see what they may have done to cause a miscarriage.

"There's no denying that this amendment would open the door to government control over some of the most personal choices facing Coloradans today," said Gayle Berry, former state representative of House District 55 in Grand Junction. "This is not a partisan issue. Both sides of the aisle can agree that if this amendment passes, Coloradans will lose the right to make decisions about their own families."

Proponents of the initiative have until May 13 to submit at least 76,000 valid signatures to the Colorado Secretary of State's office to qualify the amendment for the November 2008 ballot.

Protect Families, Protect Choices is a broad-based coalition of nurses, doctors, religious leaders, community groups and pro-choice advocacy organizations including the League of Women Voters, Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, and many others.
###

Speaker Biographies, Current Coalition Members, and Campaign Overview Follow

Speaker Biographies

Jacinta "Jacy" Montoya is executive director of Colorado Organization for Latina Opportunity and Reproductive Rights (COLOR). Montoya was born and raised in the Denver area to a Chicano father and a mother of Irish-German descent, whose families have lived in Colorado for more than 7 generations. She received a Bachelor of Arts degree in the growth & structure of cities program at Bryn Mawr College in Pennsylvania. Upon graduation, Montoya returned to Denver to work in the community in which she was raised. Her goal is to contribute to healthy communities, healthy Latinas, and healthy families by working to turn policy into action.

Dr. Mary Fairbanks is a family physician who has practiced in Colorado since 1990 After receiving her undergraduate degree from Dartmouth College, she completed medical school and her residency at Columbia University. Dr. Fairbanks is currently a faculty member at St. Anthony's Family Medicine Residency where she instructs future family practice physicians.

Senator Betty Boyd (D, Lakewood, SD 21) understands that the majority of Coloradans trust women to make their own personal health-care decisions, in consultation with their doctors, their families, and their conscience. On issues related to reproductive health, Boyd has sponsored legislation signed into law that ensures sexual assault survivors receive information about emergency contraception in the emergency room and that will allow more low-income Coloradans to receive family planning services through Medicaid to prevent unintended pregnancy. Prior to serving as state senator, she served as state representative to Colorado House District 26. Before seeking legislative office, Boyd worked for eight years as a legislative advocate for social justice.

Gayle Berry is the former state representative to Colorado House District 55 in Grand Junction. During her eight year tenure in the legislature (1996-2004), Berry was a member of the powerful Joint Budget Committee, the House Appropriations Committee, and was chair of the House Transportation Committee. Known among her colleagues as a member who could build coalitions on both sides of the aisle, Berry sponsored legislation as diverse as revising the Colorado Consumer Code, to protecting abandoned babies. She also received over 30 awards for legislative excellence during her tenure from business, economic, and human services groups. Nationally, she served on a number of legislative committees concerned with tax & fiscal policy, transportation, and women’s issues. A graduate of Fruita Monument High School and Mesa State College, Berry is a life-long resident of the western slope, and has been active in a wide range of community affairs including business, education, and family welfare.

Dr. Andrew Ross is a native of New York City and a graduate of University of Michigan with a degree in Biological Anthropology, and of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine. He did his residency training in Obstetrics and Gynecology at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia. Dr. Ross moved to Denver a little over 5 years ago. He is an OB/GYN in private practice in the south metro area. He serves on the executive and legislative committees of the Colorado Gynecological and Obstetric Society and is the director of Continuing Medical Education for the OB/GYN Department at Swedish Hospital. Dr. Ross also serves as Board Chair to the Planned Parenthood Rocky Mountain Action Fund.


Member Organizations & Endorsements

Organizations

ACLU Colorado
American Association of University Women of Colorado
Americans for Cures
Boulder Valley Women’s Health Center
Center for Reproductive Rights
Colorado Gynecological-Obstetrical Society
Colorado Organization for Latina Opportunity and Reproductive Rights
Colorado Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
Colorado Women's Agenda
Colorado Women’s Bar Association
Denver Women's Commission
Freedom Fund
Indigenous Youth Sovereignty Project
Interfaith Alliance of Colorado
League of Women Voters
LUZ Reproductive Justice Think Thank
NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado
National Abortion Federation
National Council of Jewish Women – Colorado Section
National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health
Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains
ProgressNow
Republican Majority for Choice
White House Project
Women's Lobby of Colorado


State Legislators

Sen. Betty Boyd
Sen. Dan Gibbs
Sen. Bob Hagedorn
Sen. John Morse
Sen. Chris Romer
Sen. Nancy Spence
Sen. Sue Windels
Rep. Alice Borodkin
Rep. Terrance Carroll
Rep. Randy Fischer
Rep. Sara Gagliardi
Rep. Gwyn Green
Rep. Cheri Jahn
Rep. Joel Judd
Rep. John Kefalas
Rep. Andy Kerr
Rep. Claire Levy
Rep. Alice Madden
Rep. Anne McGihon
Rep. Joe Rice

###

2008 Protect Families Protect Choices Campaign Overview
Defeating the so-called "Human Life Amendment"

This fall, Colorado voters may be asked to amend our constitution to redefine "person" and to grant constitutional rights from the moment of conception. The proposed amendment is vague, dangerous and simply goes too far. It seeks to restrict women's access to health care, it invites government intrusion into our personal lives, and, if it passes, it's permanent.

The Protect Families Protect Choices Coalition is leading the campaign to defeat this dangerous measure.

What's at stake:
Access to affordable health care is tough enough for many families in Colorado and this deceptively written ballot measure would make matters worse by putting women’s lives at risk and further restricting access to health care.

It is so vaguely worded that its true impact is impossible to predict but what we do know is bad enough.

This amendment would ban all abortion, including in cases of rape, incest or when the woman's life is at risk.
If a pregnant woman were diagnosed with cancer, she may be denied access to life-saving medical treatment because it would endanger the fetus.
This amendment is so extreme it could ban the most popular forms of birth control.
This amendment attempts to place politicians and lawyers in the middle of our most personal, private medical decisions.
The wording is so unclear it could open the door to government interference in decisions about birth control, infertility treatments and stem cell research.

The Colorado Constitution was created to protect us. Amending it should not be taken lightly and it should not be done at all for this deceptively written measure. If this proposed amendment were to pass, it would permanently change our constitution to restrict access to health care.

Our opponents:
Like the initiative they are promoting, the group promoting this measure is deceptively named. The so-called "Colorado for Equal Rights" organization is made up of extreme anti-choice groups from beyond our state borders. Although the leader of the organization, Kristi Burton, is a Colorado native, the group's funding comes from outside groups including the Thomas More Law Center in Michigan, Bound4Life in Washington, DC, and the Alliance Defense Fund in Arizona.


The challenges:
In this presidential election year, Coloradans will also decide one of the most competitive senate races in the country, several strongly contested congressional races and as a many as a dozen statewide ballot initiatives. Reaching Colorado voters through all the political advertising will be more difficult than usual.

Our opponents are hoping their deceptively written initiative, with its short and simple-sounding language, will sneak through the clutter. They are counting on people not understanding the full ramifications of the proposed amendment.

Our challenge is to get beyond the clutter, be heard over the noise and let voters know that the so-called Human Life Amendment restricts access to health care and invites government intrusion in our private medical decisions.

We need to reach out to voters with a strong grassroots effort as well as earned and paid media campaigns.

Schaffer on Abortion

Bob Schaffer, formerly of the U.S. Congress, currently is running for Senate against Mark Udall. As I've reviewed, Udall has clearly and unambiguously endorsed the separation of church and state. What about Schaffer? While he has not replied to my inquiry, and while I don't know his views on a variety of issues, he has made very clear his views on abortion.

Recently the Rocky Mountain News published a speech that Schaffer delivered in 2000 in northeastern Colorado, when Schaffer was a member of Congress. Following are some of the most important quotes:

[A]bortion as a a constitutional right... was first fabricated... in 1973... when our government stripped from the unborn child the fundamental Right to Life. ...

Tonight I want to congratulate this Pro-Life Alliance assembled here, because you have not abandoned that opening precept of our American Declaration. Nor have you abandoned the self-evident Truth that, regardless of the opinions of Washington, D.C.'s elite, the natural, God-given Rights of the unborn are still very much in force.

Your very presence here tonight reinforces it. Your money, your time, and most of all, your prayers are all testimony to the unifying force of the Creator and the true benevolence of Divine Providence. Indeed, it was 2000 years ago that He revealed to the world the way of victory over death, through a Child.

And it is because of the promise of the Christ Child that we know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that God hears our prayers for all souls. He hears our prayers that His mercy be generously dispensed upon the souls of the unborn, the souls of their mothers, their fathers, and even their executioners and all those who, through their own weakness, have become the counselors of darkness.

Our prayer and our mission here tonight is for life. Friends, the simple fact is, at abortion mills across the country, there is simply too much death, and too much violence. It is wrong, and it must stop. Whether perpetrated against the unborn, or any other human being, violence and premature death is always wrong. ...

See to it that this Republic for which we stand is truly one nation under God, and that we do extend the full benefits of Liberty and Justice to all living human beings, born and unborn.

At least Schaffer's statements are unambiguous. He believes that God prohibits abortion in all cases, that a fertilized egg has a God-given soul, and that the government should obey God's will. A search of the speech for "rape," "incest," and "life of the the mother" pulls up only "not found." Abortion "is always wrong," according to Schaffer (though I don't know whether he has since made any concessions).

It would be nice if my choice in the race weren't between a socialist and a theocrat. But I absolutely cannot vote for the theocrat.

'A Drug-Using Atheist'

Christian columnist and professor Mike Adams recently admitted past drug use and commented on Obama's past drug use:

In addition to smoking marijuana -- sometimes laced with substances like PCP -- for a number of years, I also experimented with drugs like hashish, powdered cocaine, LSD, and methamphetamines (including ecstasy). I regret my decision to use illegal drugs in my youth and I'm really sorry. Now that my past drug use is out of the way, let's move on to Barack Obama.

I may surprise a number of people by saying that I don't think Obama's past drug use -- including the use of powdered cocaine -- in any way disqualifies him from being President. I know I've had no trouble refraining from illegal drug use since I joined a Christian church many years ago.

I had not heard about Obama's drug use, but an article from the Washington Post confirms it:

Long before the national media spotlight began to shine on every twist and turn of his life's journey, Barack Obama had this to say about himself [in Dreams From My Father]: "Junkie. Pothead. That's where I'd been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man. . . . I got high [to] push questions of who I was out of my mind." ... Through his book, Obama has become the first potential presidential contender to admit trying cocaine.

I agree with Adams that Obama's past drug use does not disqualify him for the presidency (and Republicans can hardly argue the point, given the man they put into office). However, Adams suggests that the reason we can trust Obama not to return to drug use is that he converted to Christianity -- which is ridiculous. Many Christians abuse drugs, including alcohol, while many atheists do not. What's important is for somebody to build a better moral character. I personally know people who, in that process, became religious, but that's because they saw religion as the only alternative to the moral subjectivism that had troubled them. I also personally know people who, as they overcame drug abuse, either remained atheists or moved away from religion and toward a secular morality. (I particularly recommend Craig Biddle's Loving Life and Tara Smith's Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics for their discussions of rational virtues.)

I started out as a Christian; then I became an atheist who abused drugs (particularly alcohol, but a few times other drugs). Finally I grew up, took a hard look at my past mistakes, and started to work hard to improve my character. (I'm still working out a few details.)

I know I've had no trouble refraining from drug abuse since I rejected first the Christian church and then a pragmatic subjectivism many years ago.

NYT on McCain: Forest, Anyone?

The New York Times is after John McCain (again). Michael Cooper writes in his March 19 story:

Mr. McCain said several times in his visit to Jordan -- in a news conference and in a radio interview -- that he was concerned that Iran was training Al Qaeda in Iraq. The United States believes that Iran, a Shiite country, has been training and financing Shiite extremists in Iraq, but not Al Qaeda, which is a Sunni insurgent group. ...

It was not until he got a quiet word of correction in his ear from Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, who was traveling with Mr. McCain as part of a Congressional delegation on a nearly weeklong trip, that Mr. McCain corrected himself.

“I’m sorry,” Mr. McCain said, “the Iranians are training extremists, not Al Qaeda.”

So the chip of bark is that McCain made a minor misstatement about which terrorists Iran is training in Iraq.

But, while the Times has consumed forests of newsprint through its years, neither that paper nor either of the Democrats running for president seem prepared even to glance at this forest:

"...Iran... has been training and financing Shiite extremists in Iraq..."

How exactly does that qualify as anything other than an act of war by Iran against the United States?

Meanwhile, McCain has glanced at the forest and smelled the smoke from the fire raging within it. Unfortunately, I suspect that, if elected president, his response would be either to busily pump up his squirt gun -- or to try to douse the flames with American bodies. Neither approach is sane, but there is another alternative.

Obama's 'Perfect Union' Speech

Given a political problem that began with the words of Barack Obama's pastor, Obama's "More Perfect Union" speech of March 18 had little to do with religion. The troubling comments of Jeremiah Wright, some of which I've reviewed, were typical of the far left, but they had nothing to do with religion. Yet the comments that Obama did make about religion are worth a look.

For what it's worth, I thought Obama's speech was masterful. The people still mad about his affiliation with Wright never would have voted for Obama, anyway.

I was surprised to hear Obama make such a strong statement regarding the motives of terrorism in the Middle East:

[Wright's view wrongly] sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

After describing where Wright went wrong, Obama then discusses what he appreciates about the man:

[Wright] is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth -- by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

Obviously if people want to voluntarily care for the sick, the poor, and people with disease, they are free to do so. But Obama believes that these Christian policies should be imposed through political force. He named four main policy issues in the speech: health care, education, jobs, and the war. His policies are typical of the left; he wants to expand federal political control of health care, education, and employment, even though existing political controls are the cause of problems in those areas. (Obama's plan to socialize medicine would disproportionately harm the very people he claims to chamption.) For decades the left has been promoting what is essentially a secularized and coercive version of the Christian ethos. The only difference with Obama is that he is explicit about the religious connection.

Nevertheless, the policies that Obama promotes, however much they violate individual rights and economic liberty, remain separable from religion. That's more than can be said for some of the policies that John McCain endorses.

Wright vs. Hagee: Pick Your Crazy

Mark Wolf of the Rocky Mountain News has collected some (shall we say) interesting quotes from two pastors tangentially related to the presidential campaign. Wolf writes, "Jeremiah Wright who recently retired from Obama's church, married the Obamas and baptized their children." And John Hagee endorsed John McCain. All links are originally from Wolf except for a link to Hagee's web page. What do these two Christian leaders believe?

Wolf points to a story from ABC about Wright:

In addition to damning America, he told his congregation on the Sunday after Sept. 11, 2001 that the United States had brought on al Qaeda's attacks because of its own terrorism.

"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," Rev. Wright said in a sermon on Sept. 16, 2001.

"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost," he told his congregation.

So, to Wright, the fact that the U.S. bombed a nation that brutally attacked and waged war against the U.S., and the U.S. failed to side with Palestinian terrorist campaigns, means that the U.S. deserved or invited the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Wright's views are somewhat similar to those of Ward Churchill, who also used the line about chickens roosting with respect to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Wright's comments are reprehensible.

Hagee has taken heat for comments that he made regarding the Catholic Church. Hagee claims some of his comments were taken out of context. You can hear these comments for yourself in a video from Veracifier available through YouTube. Hagee's statements about the Catholic Church hardly reveal the extent of the man's lunacy. When Hagee makes the following remarks, he is pointing to a figurine of a person riding atop a horned lion:

This [it's unclear whether Hagee is pointing to the lion or the person] is the great whore of Revelation 17. This [the lion] is the antichrist system. This [the person] is the apostate church. In this cup [held by the person] if you will read it in the book of Revelation is the blood of the saints. This is talking principally about the blood of the Jewish people. Where? From the crusades, that happened back here [earlier on a timeline]. From the Spanish Inquisition. From the Holocaust. When Adolf Hitler came to power he said, I'm not going to do anything in my lifetime that hasn't been done by the Roman church for the past 800 years, I'm only going to do it on a greater scale, and more efficiently. And he certainly had done just exactly that. God has said, I gave you the time to repent, but you did not. You [the person], this false cult system, that was born in Genesis 10, and progressed through Israel and became Baal worship, God says, the day is going to come, when I'm going to cause this beast [the lion] to devour this apostate system [the person]. So you can see very clearly that, while the church is in heaven, this false religious system [the person] is going to be totally devoured by the antichrist.

The same YouTube video plays a selection of Hagee from a radio interview; Wolf includes the following text:

From an interview with Terry Gross on National Public Radio's Fresh Air program:

GROSS: I just want to ask you one question based on one of your sermons that -- and this isn't about Israel. You said after Hurricane Katrina that it was an act of God, and you said "when you violate God's will long enough, the judgment of God comes to you. Katrina is an act of God for a society that is becoming Sodom and Gomorrah reborn." Do you still think that Katrina is punishment from God for a society that's becoming like Sodom and Gomorrah?

HAGEE: All hurricanes are acts of God, because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they are -- were recipients of the judgment of God for that. The newspaper carried the story in our local area that was not carried nationally that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades. So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing. I know that there are people who demur from that, but I believe that the Bible teaches that when you violate the law of God, that God brings punishment sometimes before the day of judgment. And I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans.

GROSS: So I know you're very opposed to homosexuality, but you think that the whole city was punished because of things like the forthcoming Gay Pride parade.

HAGEE: This is true. All of the city was punished because of the sin that happened there in that city.

I don't think I need to criticize Hagee's comments in greater depth other than to denounce them completely. Anybody who actually believes what Hagee is saying is so detached from reality that rational discussion is probably beside the point. Hagee represents the mentality of the Dark Ages.

Catholics "To End Abortion"

Recently I described and criticized the effort in Colorado to define a fertilized egg as a person. While the Catholic Church has not officially endorsed the measure, Catholics also wish "to end abortion," according to one spokesperson.

Electa Draper writes for the February 28 Denver Post:

"We commend the goal of this effort to end abortion. Individual Catholics may choose to work for its passage," [Colorado Catholic Conference Executive Director Jennifer] Kraska said.

"At the same time, we recognize that other people committed to the sanctity of life have raised serious questions about this specific amendment's timing and content," she said.

Kraska does not reveal -- and Draper does not report -- what problems some Catholics find with the measure's "timing and content." But Kraska could not be more clear in her position on abortion -- a position that, far from preserving "the sanctity of life," would destroy the sanctity of life of some people.

Nor are other Catholics as hesitant, as Draper continues:

"It's a political, gutless position," said Judie Brown, president of the American Life League.

"As a Catholic, it's the most scandalous thing I've ever heard," Brown said. "I can't believe that any bishop wouldn't want to be out in the front lines helping the petitioners. The sanctity of life is a fundamental teaching of the Catholic Church."

This issue is not limited to Colorado. Draper concludes:

The Colorado effort is part of a national movement to win Supreme Court review of Roe v. Wade, Brown said. Montana and Mississippi also have ballot initiatives in progress for 2008; Georgia, Michigan, Ohio and Oregon were working toward a 2009 measure.

Nobody can say the advocates of faith-based politics didn't warn us.

A Fertilized Egg Is Not a Person

Recently I discussed Mike Huckabee's opposition to abortion. He really means it. A February 26 article from the Rocky Mountain News states:

A proposed ballot measure that would define personhood as a fertilized egg picked up the endorsement of Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, an ordained Baptist minister.

In a statement Monday, Huckabee said the amendment proposed by 20-year-old Kristi Burton and her group, Colorado for Equal Rights, would send a clear message that every human life has value.

Here is the text of the proposal:

Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Colorado:

SECTION 1. Article II of the constitution of the state of Colorado is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION to read:

Section 31. Person defined. 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.

And here is what those three sections state:

Section 3. Inalienable rights.

All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

Section 6. Equality of justice.

Courts of justice shall be open to every person, and a speedy remedy afforded for every injury to person, property or character; and right and justice should be administered without sale, denial or delay.

Section 25. Due process of law.

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.

Here I will briefly recapitulate the case against the proposal.

A fertilized egg is not a person. It is (in the right circumstances) a potential person, but a potential is not an actual person. A fertilized egg is human in the sense that it contains human DNA, but that is the case with every cell in our bodies. The distinction between a potential and actual person applies throughout gestation, but it is particularly obvious in the case of a fertilized egg. A fertilized egg soon becomes a clump of undifferentiated cells; certainly it cannot function or live independently.

A fertilized egg is not a person and therefore does not have rights. A woman has an absolute right to abort a fertilized egg and older embryo. (This is true even if the pregnancy resulted from irresponsible behavior.)

What would be some of the implications of treating a fertilized egg as a person?

The measure, if enforced (which is another matter), would outlaw all abortions, even in the case of rape, incest, severe damage to the embryo, and danger to the woman's life. The measure would probably outlaw the use of all "morning after" medications. That means that women, and/or their doctors, and/or the producers and suppliers of items used for abortion, would be subject to criminal prosecution and punishment.

It so happens that a large percentage of pregnancies are naturally terminated by women's bodies. It is also the case that sometimes a fertilized egg begins to grow outside of the uterus; this is called an ectopic pregnancy.

Treating a fertilized egg as a person, then, would require a criminal investigation into any terminated pregnancy in which the women was suspected of inducing her body's rejection of the egg, embryo, or fetus. Serious enforcement of the measure would require the machinations of a police state. Treating a fertilized egg as a person would also require the woman to risk and often surrender her life in the case of dangerous pregnancies, including ectopic ones.

The measure is hideously immoral and ghastly in its implications.

Huckabee Compares Abortion to Slavery

Mike Huckabee recently visited Colorado to meet James Dobson of Focus on the Family. Huckabee also spoke at an event hosted by the Leadership Program of the Rockies. The Denver Post reported the news and reviewed some of Huckabee's comments:

Huckabee, a former Baptist minister, said liberty requires "moral clarity" and that equality demands a human-life amendment to the Constitution. He said that even if the Supreme Court overturned the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in 1973, it wouldn't go far enough.

"What that means is that every one of the 50 states can come up with its own definition of life," said Huckabee, equating abortion with slavery. "That's the logic of the Civil War. That's the idea that morality is geographical. It's the notion that something can be right in one state and wrong in another. Well, when it came to slavery, we finally got it right that you can't own another human being."

So Huckabee was serious when he said he wants to "amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards."

I do agree with Huckabee about the illegitimacy of moral relativism. Yet Huckabee seeks to replace moral relativism with universally enforced religious dogma, which is even worse. There is simply no basis in reality for equating a fertilized egg with a person, as Huckabee is trying to do. Therefore, Huckabee's suggestion that abortion is morally equal to slavery is absurd. Outlawing abortion in any state would be morally wrong.

Norris: Christian Ranger

Ordinarily, I don't care what actors think about politics. But I do care about actors who espouse popular conservative views on popular conservative forums. Especially when those actors endorse relatively successful politicians who promise us faith-based politics.

Townhall.com has published at least a couple of Chuck Norris's articles praising Mike Huckabee. Here is one segment from Norris's recent piece about murder in our society:

We teach our children they are nothing more than glorified apes, yet we don't expect them to act like monkeys. We place our value in things, yet expect our children to value people. We disrespect one another, but expect our children to respect others. We terminate children in the womb, but are surprised when children outside the womb terminate other children. We push God to the side, but expect our children to be godly. We've abandoned moral absolutes, yet expect our children to obey the universal commandment: "Thou shall not murder."

Once we weed out the platitudes, we are left with the following substantive claims: the teaching of evolution as science, abortion, irreligion, and moral non-absolutism are responsible for murder.

In other words, Norris believes that those who reject mythological explanations of the creation of the world and of life, those who find a distinction between a fertilized egg and a person, and those who decline to subordinate their lives to an invented supernatural being, all promote murder. And let's not look at the history of what those who believe the opposite tend to do.

Norris also wishes us to believe that the foundation of moral absolutism is mythology and supernaturalism. Perhaps it requires the sensibilities of one trained in the art of make-believe to see beyond the distinction between rigorously imposed religious rules and objective moral absolutes.

But Norris delivers the knock-out blow in his closing paragraph: "If Psalm 33:12 says, 'Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord,' then what will be the state of blessedness for the nation that abandons God and his moral code of conduct?" Who can argue with logic like that?

'First Freedom First'

A reader pointed me to FirstFreedomFirst.org, a project of The Interfaith Alliance Foundation and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The site encourages people to ask candidates ten questions.

First Freedom asks whether candidates believe that "America is a 'Christian Nation'," or, alternately, that "everyone’s religious freedom needs to be protected by what Thomas Jefferson called 'a wall of separation' between church and state." First Freedom also asks candidates whether they believe that "one's right to disbelieve in God is protected" by law. Those questions are fine.

Unfortunately, other questions are ambiguous or otherwise problematic. Moreover, they are not nearly as useful as the five questions that I have proposed.

First Freedom does not ask any question specifically about abortion. Its final question asks, "What should guide our policies on public health and medical research: science or religion?" But various Christians can and do rationalize bans on abortion and stem-cell research on the (alleged) basis of "science," so the question accomplishes little.

I, on the other hand, ask candidates to declare whether they "Oppose efforts to restrict the legal right of adult women to obtain an abortion" and "Oppose bans on embryonic stem-cell research."

Even worse, First Freedom implies that it's fine for government to forcibly transfer wealth to religious groups. The site asks, "Should 'faith-based' charities that receive public funds be allowed to discriminate against employees or applicants based on religious beliefs?" But forcing people to fund "'faith-based' charities" violates the rights of those who do not wish to fund such organizations. That is why I ask whether candidates "Oppose the spending of tax dollars on programs with religious affiliations, such as 'faith-based' welfare." Freedom of religion entails the right not to fund religious groups.

First Freedom asks, "Do you think my pharmacist should be allowed to deny me doctor-prescribed medications based on his or her religious beliefs?" "Allowed," by whom? The question implies that pharmacists must be subjected to federal controls. My view is that pharmacists have the right to conduct business however they see fit (so long as they do not damage their clients through fraud, negligence, or other abuses); what medicines a pharmacist sells should be strictly up to that pharmacist. If you don't like the policies of a particular pharmacist, you are free do to business with another pharmacist and to publicly criticize the one you don't like. The separation of church and state implies that the state cannot force business owners to act against their religious beliefs.

First Freedom asks, "Do you think Houses of Worship should be allowed to endorse political candidates and retain their tax exempt status?" The thrust of the question is fine, given modern laws, yet my deeper problem is with the tax laws. I don't think any advocacy group should be subjected to taxation or federal rules. But, then again, I do not think that any business or group should be subject to taxation; every group should be "tax exempt" and free from federal rules. (I'm not a a fan of taxation in general, but I think taxing individuals only would be a vast improvement over taxing individuals as well as groups.)

First Freedom asks two questions about "public" schools: "Do you think public schools should sponsor school prayer or, as a parent, should this choice be left to me? Would you support a law that mandates teaching creationism in my child’s public school science classes?" These questions are pretty good, but the problem lies with the definition of a "public" school. While my questions don't include a specific reference to school prayer, my question about creationism is more precise: I ask whether candidates "Oppose the spending of tax dollars to teach creationism and/or intelligent design as science."

First Freedom asks, "Will you respect the rights of those in our diverse communities of faith who deem same-gender marriage to be consistent with their religious creed?" This is a poor question because it focuses on rights of conscience rather than rights of contract. What about people who are not part of "diverse communities of faith?" The point is that contract law -- of which marriage law is a type -- ought not be driven by religious dogma. I favor "domestic partnerships" for gay couples because they have the right to enter contractual relationships just as heterosexual couples do.

However pleased I am to see First Freedom taking up the fight for the separation of church and state, the organization cannot be very effective until it develops a consistent set of principles.

McCain, Romney, and the Politics of Satan

Recently I wrote that "Romney's religious background did hurt him, not only among some urbanites, but among some evangelical Christians." How much did Romney's Mormonism hurt him among Catholics and Protestants? And just how different is Mormonism from those other Christian strains?

James Dobson of Focus on the Family recently endorsed Mike Huckabee. (In response to concerns that he is so far behind the delegate count, Huckabee responded, "Well, I didn’t major in math. I majored in miracles. And I still believe in those, too.")

Notably, Dobson endorsed Huckabee only after Romney left the race; Romney's Mormonism was not a deal-breaker for Dobson in terms of presidential politics:

I am endorsing Gov. Mike Huckabee for President of the United States today. My decision comes in the wake of my statement on Super Tuesday that I could not vote for Sen. John McCain, even if he goes on to win the Republican nomination. His record on the institution of the family and other conservative issues makes his candidacy a matter of conscience and concern for me.

That left two pro-family candidates whom I could support, but I was reluctant to choose between them. However, the decision by Gov. Mitt Romney to put his campaign "on hold" changes the political landscape. The remaining candidate for whom I could vote is Gov. Huckabee. His unwavering positions on the social issues, notably the institution of marriage, the importance of faith and the sanctity of human life, resonate deeply with me and with many others.

Notice that Dobson's sole criteria here are issues particular to Christian dogma. Christians believe that homosexuality is wrong, and Dobson supported the Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. McCain did not support that amendment, even though he has come out strongly in favor of the view that "the institution of marriage is a union between one man and one woman." But on this point Dobson insists on agreement with means as well as ends; he does not see as adequate prohibiting gay marriage (or "domestic partnerships") by means other than a Constitutional ban.

In opposing the Constitutional measure, McCain cited federalism:

"The constitutional amendment we're debating today strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans," McCain said. "It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states do not believe confronts them."

Dobson also puts McCain outside of the anti-abortion camp, even though McCain has stated that his ultimate aim is "ending abortion."

So, even though McCain has essentially adopted Dobson's religious-right platform, the very reason that I will vote for McCain's opponent, McCain's positions on these issues are not strong enough for Dobson.

As a side note, at least Ann Coulter gave reasons for opposing McCain other than those grounded in Christian faith:

He promoted amnesty for 20 million illegal immigrants. He abridged citizens' free speech (in favor of the media) with McCain-Feingold. He hysterically opposes waterboarding terrorists and wants to shut down Guantanamo. He denounced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. He opposes ANWR and supports the global warming cult, even posturing with fellow mountebank Arnold Schwarzenegger in front of solar panels.

I have no basic problem with McCain's view on amnesty, but I agree with Coulter that McCain's censorship law is terrible. In my view, that single position should disqualify McCain from any elected office.

Of course, Coulter also finds fault with McCain's partial support for stem-cell research and his marginally "soft" position on abortion. This tells us something about the religious right. It is not enough for the religious right merely for a candidate to advocate "ending abortion;" the candidate must stop at nothing to achieve that aim. Yet the view that a fertilized egg is the equivalent of a human person is based on nothing but religious dogma, and a ban on abortion would sacrifice the real rights of people to the make-believe rights of embryos.

But on to Romney's Mormonism. David Harsanyi wrote a humorous yet poignant column about the issue:

...Mitt Romney's exit from the presidential race was inevitable the moment evangelical voters heard he was a Mormon.

Evangelicals have shown us they now have a stranglehold on the Republican Party. ...

In 2006, Dr. James Dobson -- whose wife excluded Mormons from participation in the National Day of Prayer that she chaired in 2004 -- explained, "I don't believe that conservative Christians in large numbers will vote for a Mormon...."

... When asked if he considered Mormonism a cult or a religion, Huckabee answered, "I think it's a religion. I really don't know much about it ... . Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?"

Golly, gee, ya think? (All this time I thought the Dark Lord Xenu was Satan's brother.)

It seems perfectly reasonable to vote against a candidate based on faith, if the candidate's beliefs conflict and/or pose a theocratic threat to the Constitution.

An example of this latent danger might be seen in an aspiring presidential candidate declaring his supporters to be members of "God's Army" or "soldiers for Christ." A candidate like Huckabee.

The alleged belief that "Jesus and the devil are brothers" is hardly stranger than any belief of Catholic or Protestant Christianity. Indeed, the idea that gods have offspring arose long before Christianity. But is Huckabee's claim true? Certainly many other Christians think so. For example, GodVoter.org (!) -- "Honoring God In Election 2008" (!!) -- claims:

"What evidence do you have that Mormonism teaches Jesus is Satan's brother?"

Quoted below are the founder, presidents, leaders and writings of Mormonism on your question, the teaching that God began as man, and the Mormon heresy of man becoming God someday:

"Jesus is the literal spirit-brother of Lucifer, a creation." (Gospel Through the Ages, p. 15)

"Long before you were born a program was developed by your creators... The principal personalities in this great drama were a Father Elohim, perfect in wisdom, judgment, and person, and two sons, Lucifer and Jehovah." (Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, pp. 32-33)

"The appointment of Jesus to be the Savior of the world was contested by one of the other sons of God. He was called Lucifer, son of the morning. Haughty, ambitious, and covetous of power and glory, this sprit-filled brother of Jesus desperately tried to become the Savior of mankind." (Milton R. Hunter, Gospel Through the Ages, page 15)

I have not checked the citations in question, so I have no idea whether GodVoter.org gets this right. (I welcome the comments of any reader, Mormon or otherwise, who can offer a good evaluation of this.) But the Catholics, too, claim that the Mormons adopt the "doctrine of Jesus Christ being the 'spirit brother' of Lucifer." (Of course, as Elaine Pagels writes in The Origin of Satan, "As he first appears in the Hebrew Bible, Satan is not necessarily evil, much less opposed to God. On the contrary, he appears in the book of Numbers and in Job as one of God's obedient servants --a messenger, or angel... In Hebrew, the angels were often called 'sons of God'..." -- page 39).

If you've not had your fill of crazy for the day, perhaps World Net Daily will satisfy:

'Vote for Romney is vote for Satan'
Christian leader follows up Sharpton attack on Mormons
Posted: May 10, 2007
9:15 pm Eastern

While some evangelical Christians are defending the presidential candidacy of Mormon Mitt Romney from an attack by Al Sharpton, another prominent pastor is going further in his condemnation -- saying a vote for the former Massachusetts governor is a vote for Satan.

That's the word from Bill Keller, host of the Florida-based Live Prayer TV program as well as LivePrayer.com.

"If you vote for Mitt Romney, you are voting for Satan!" he writes in his daily devotional to be sent out to 2.4 million e-mail subscribers tomorrow.

Sharpton, the Democratic Party activist and former presidential candidate, has been widely condemned for singling out Romney's faith as an issue in the campaign.

"As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyways, so don't worry about that; that's a temporary situation," he said.

Keller also comes out swinging against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as a cult.

"This message today is not about Mitt Romney," he writes. "Romney is an unashamed and proud member of the Mormon cult founded by a murdering polygamist pedophile named Joseph Smith nearly 200 years ago. The teachings of the Mormon cult are doctrinally and theologically in complete opposition to the Absolute Truth of God's Word. There is no common ground. If Mormonism is true, then the Christian faith is a complete lie. There has never been any question from the moment Smith's cult began that it was a work of Satan and those who follow their false teachings will die and spend eternity in hell."

See? Dobson is restrained by comparison.

And so it is that an American election for president, the most powerful political office in the world, will be determined, in part, by what members of some religious sects think about the position of another religious sect on the relationship of Jesus and Satan. Or, "My god is better than your god." Because, you know, the (alleged) idea that Jesus and Satan are "spirit brothers" is so much more bizarre than the idea that God impregnated a mortal virgin with Jesus and created Satan as an angel.

Absolute insanity.

Thoughts on Super Tuesday

What are the religious implications of Super Tuesday? Obviously, many of my thoughts are speculative. But this is my best shot at explaining part of what's going on.

As I write, The Denver Post reports that John McCain leads the Republican race with 525 delegates, more than twice as many as Mitt Romney's 223 delegates, and more than the delegates of Romney and Mike Huckabee combined. Romney might still come back, but at this point it seems that McCain has the momentum. Why is that? I suspect that a large part of the reason is that many Republicans are shying away from the strong religious overtones of Romney and Huckabee. And that is a very good sign. Generally I don't care what religion a president professes, but I do care when candidates for president promise to impose religious doctrine by force of law.

Yet, as I've pointed out, McCain has also cozied up to the religious right. Republicans, though, know that McCain is not as dedicated to faith-based politics as are his main competitors. From my perspective, though, McCain's turn remains deeply troubling. McCain knows that he cannot win without the evangelical wing of his party. And, once in office, McCain will face constant pressure to deliver the goods to this wing.

Even though Barack Obama seems much more interested in faith-based politics than does McCain, Obama also faces obvious restraints by his party. For example, while Obama rushed to give an interview to Christianity Today, he also made it clear that he wants to keep abortion legal.

Therefore, the way I see it, even though Obama seems to be more seriously religious, McCain is a much more dangerous threat to the separation of church and state. That is why I will vote for either of the two Democrats over any of the Republicans.

That said, as much as I personally dislike Hillary Clinton and strongly disapprove of most of her policies, I believe that she is the best candidate for preserving the separation of church and state.

The Republicans have made their bed, and I for one refuse to sleep in it. Clinton is about as strange a bedfellow as I can tolerate.

But how do I explain the results in Colorado? As I have argued at length, the Interior West tends to be more secular in orientation. Why, then, did Colorado go for Obama and Romney, two of the more religious candidates, with such high numbers? The Post reports early figures of 67 percent for Obama and 59 percent for Romney.

I'll take the Democrats first. David Montero argues for the Rocky Mountain News that Obama's message resonated with voters skeptical or tired of the war in Iraq. Montero adds, "It was also a conscious strategy by the Obama campaign to zero in on caucus states such as Colorado to pick up delegates and keep the overall race tight between himself and Clinton." Beyond that, I think there's something about Clinton's condescending, smarty-pants manner that rubs Westerners the wrong way.

What about Romney? For starters, the Post endorsed Romney, and the Post's libertarian-conservative David Harsanyi pounded McCain. As Lynn Bartels of the Rocky points out, Romney "had a campaign presence in Colorado for months." I personally detest McCain, as I consider him an enemy of the Bill of Rights. The fact that McCain is from Arizona only rankles me all the more; he gives the Interior West a bad name. So it's not much of a surprise to me that Republicans in my state rejected him.

Obviously Romney stomped McCain in Utah, but even in Arizona early returns show McCain unable to win even half the votes. And Montana also went for Romney.

In Colorado, Romney's Mormonism isn't a big deal. Here, Mormons are more than guys in white shirts and ties pedaling bicycles; they are our friends and neighbors. In addition, because Coloradans are on the whole somewhat more secular, voters here don't get quite as excited by doctrinal differences. Even though nobody likes to discuss it, Romney's religious background did hurt him, not only among some urbanites, but among some evangelical Christians.

One more thing hurt McCain in Colorado: James Dobson of Focus on the Family came out swinging against McCain. Christa Marshall writes:

"Should John McCain capture the nomination as many assume, I believe this general election will offer the worst choices for president in my lifetime. I certainly can't vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama based on their virulently anti-family policy positions. If these are the nominees in November, I simply will not cast a ballot for president for the first time in my life," Dobson said through a prepared statement read on "The Laura Ingraham Show."

Dobson singled out McCain's support for embryonic stem-cell research and opposition to a "constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage." He also chastised the GOP presidential candidate for saying once that Hillary Clinton would make a good president and being a potential 2004 running mate for Sen. John Kerry.

Dobson seems to dislike McCain even more than I do, though for completely different reasons. Dobson attacked McCain even though McCain tried to appeal to evangelicals on the issues mentioned:

The family represents the foundation of Western Civilization and civil society and John McCain believes the institution of marriage is a union between one man and one woman. It is only this definition that sufficiently recognizes the vital and unique role played by mothers and fathers in the raising of children, and the role of the family in shaping, stabilizing, and strengthening communities and our nation. ...

John McCain opposes the intentional creation of human embryos for research purposes. To that end, Senator McCain voted to ban the practice of "fetal farming," making it a federal crime for researchers to use cells or fetal tissue from an embryo created for research purposes.

What this dispute indicates to me is that Republican candidates must seek to appease the religious right, but politicians who stop short of completely adopting the religious right's political agenda will always struggle with that group. While the Democratic Party is, most deeply, the party of pragmatic, watered-down socialism, the Republican Party is, most deeply, the party of faith-based politics.

In other words, Clinton is the rock to McCain's hard place.

Is there any way to dodge these charging horns? The only way out that I see is for the secular, free-market Republicans to abandon the religious right and find new friends among the free-trade and "blue dog" Democrats. The religious right already seems to be merging with the religious left. I'm not bothered by the prospect of the (non-Christian) socialist wing of the Democratic party finding itself without a coalition.

It would be nice if, in some future election, I actually had a reason to vote for a candidate.

John McCain on Religion

Now that it seems more likely that John McCain will become the Republican nominee, I thought it was a good time to see where McCain stands on religion in politics. The short answer is that he's all for it.

The official John McCain web page contains the document, "Human Dignity & the Sanctity of Life."

McCain said, "To sacrifice for a cause greater than yourself, and to sacrifice your life to the eminence of that cause, is the noblest activity of all." He really means it. For example, he wishes to force women to sacrifice their lives to the Christian dogma against abortion. Here's what McCain's web page says on the issue:

John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench. Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat.

However, the reversal of Roe v. Wade represents only one step in the long path toward ending abortion. ...

McCain's ultimate goal, then, is "ending abortion." The web page lists no exceptions; I don't know whether McCain has mentioned possible exceptions elsewhere. However, it seems that his official web page should be taken at face value as the statement of his positions. If we take the goal of "ending abortion" seriously, that means a complete ban on the "morning after" pill. It means criminal penalties for women and/or doctors involved with abortion. It means that women who are raped will be forced to carry the child to term. It means that women whose lives are in danger will be forced to face death rather than get an abortion. It means that, from the moment the sperm enters the egg, that embryo is fully protected by law, regardless of the the health of the embryo, the cause of the embryo, or the health, choices, and welfare of the woman carrying the embryo. Even if McCain hastens to carve out exceptions, his policy would still subvert the health and autonomy of the woman to an embryo. McCain calls for sacrifice, and he means it. He literally means that women must sacrifice their lives to the "eminence" of the Christian doctrine that equates a fertilized egg with a human being. (Notably, the text about abortion appears on the web page right next to a video titled, "Faith.") That is what John McCain means by the term "human dignity."

Not surprisingly, then, McCain also wishes to potentially sacrifice the lives of sick people to embryos; he opposes stem-cell research. [February 6 update: McCain opposes some forms of stem-cell research but also believes, "Stem cell research offers tremendous hope for those suffering from a variety of deadly diseases..."]

Back in October, I pledged to "vote against any candidate who does not explicitly and unambiguously endorse the separation of church and state." Obviously McCain wishes to impose religious doctrine by force of law. Thus, I will not vote for John McCain for any political office, under any circumstances.

Obama on Faith-Based Welfare

Recently I discussed Barack Obama's comments about abortion in Christianity Today. Now I want to turn to Obama's comments about faith in general and about the tax funding of religious groups. The article is from Christianity Today, and the interview, "Q&A: Barack Obama," conducted by Sarah Pulliam and Ted Olsen, was published on January 23.

Obama makes clear that he is deeply religious:

I am a Christian, and I am a devout Christian. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life. But most importantly, I believe in the example that Jesus set by feeding the hungry and healing the sick and always prioritizing the least of these over the powerful. ... Accepting Jesus Christ in my life has been a powerful guide for my conduct and my values and my ideals.

Subscription to the Christian faith is common among U.S. presidents. The problem arises when a Christian politician attempts to impose Christian theology by force of law. Clearly, Obama is restrained by his own party and political beliefs from traveling too far down the path toward faith-based politics. However, he also clearly tries to support the standard Democratic agenda with Christian beliefs.

In the following comment, Obama does not make clear whether he wants to use tax dollars for the programs in question:

I think it is important for us to encourage churches and congregations all across the country to involve themselves in rebuilding communities. One of the things I have consistently argued is that we can structure faith-based programs that prove to be successful -- like substance abuse or prison ministries -- without violating church and state. We should make sure they are rebuilding the lives of people even if they're not members of a particular congregation. That's the kind of involvement that I think many churches are pursuing, including my own.

However, Obama does say that he sees no inherent problem with spending tax dollars on religious groups. Christianity Today asked, "So would you keep the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives open or restructure it?" Obama answers:

You know, what I'd like to do is I'd like to see how it's been operating. One of the things that I think churches have to be mindful of is that if the federal government starts paying the piper, then they get to call the tune. It can, over the long term, be an encroachment on religious freedom. So, I want to see how moneys have been allocated through that office before I make a firm commitment in terms of sustaining practices that may not have worked as well as they should have.

Obama is rightly concerned about political interference in religion, but he does not believe that spending tax dollars on religious groups will necessarily create that problem.

However, Obama completely ignores the other side of the problem: what about the rights of people who do not wish to fund religious organizations? Religious freedom entails the right not to support religious groups against one's choice.

The example of prison ministry has broader implications. I have no problem with Christian ministry in prisons -- so long as it is voluntary for prisoners, prisoners have equal access to secular alternatives, and no tax dollars are involved. Obama talks about Christians "rebuilding the lives of people even if they're not members of a particular congregation." Is this Obama's attitude also with faith-based welfare? But what about people who are not members of any religious congregation? An explicitly religious group that spends tax dollars necessarily promotes a religious message, however subtly. And the religious group itself benefits from the tax dollars. Again, people have the right not to support such things.

Morris on Obama

Father Jonathan Morris complains that Barack Obama rejects "some of the most basic principles of Christian morality." Morris is most concerned about abortion. Morris writes:

Examine carefully the religious language he employs: "I do think that those who diminish the moral elements of the decision aren't expressing the full reality of it. But what I believe is that women do not make these decisions casually, and that they struggle with it fervently with their pastors, with their spouses, with their doctors."

Is Sen. Obama suggesting that Christians who consider "the moral elements of the decision" and who "struggle with it fervently with their pastors" may be in line with God’s will by deciding that abortion is the right choice? I think he is, or as he would probably say, "the right choice for them."

Sen. Obama goes even further with this creative mix of religious talk and completely subjective morality. He suggests women "pray about" whether to have an abortion -- as if God might whisper his approval. ("Bill Clinton’s Analogy Revisited: Barack Obama vs. Jesse Jackson," January 28, 2008)

Morris's analysis is interesting for several reasons. First, it is obvious that Obama is restrained by his party in pushing his religious agenda, at least in the area of personal choice (as opposed to the economic arena, where leftists seem eager to adopt religious language to support their economic controls).

Second, what most concerns Morris is Obama's support for legal abortions, not Obama's faith-based socialism. In general, the religious right makes little effort to defend economic liberty -- and more often openly assaults it.

Third, Morris is absolutely correct about Obama's double standards. Notice that Obama does not reject the religious doctrine that an embryo has the same rights as a person because God infuses a fertilized egg with a soul. Nor does Obama endorse the absolute moral right of women to control their own bodies and futures by getting an abortion. Instead, Obama tempers religious doctrine with a pragmatic subjectivism, as Morris argues. This demonstrates that, just as the religious right cannot, when pushed, defend economic liberty with any conviction, so the religious left cannot, when pushed, defend liberty in the personal sphere.

In any contest between the religious right and the religious left, both sides will tend to win on their pet issues. The religious right maintains an enduring moral fervor for outlawing (and thus imposing criminal penalties for) abortion, while the religious left maintains an enduring moral fervor for forcibly redistributing wealth and controlling the economy. Both sides will tend to "compromise" by eliminating liberty in both the economic and personal spheres.

"Amend the Constitution so it's in God's Standards"

Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said the following on Monday:

I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view.

The commentary with the accompanying video suggests that Huckabee was talking about abortion (as in, banning it) and marriage (as in, banning gay marriage).

There was no confusion before -- Huckabee is serious about imposing his religious views through force of politics. This latest comment only emphasizes the point. And, as Paul Hsieh recently pointed out (quoting The New York Times,) Huckabee's religious views conflict with the ideals of economic liberty. All around, he's a horrible candidate, judged by the standard of liberty.

Ron Paul for President, RIP

I was looking up Radley Balko's comments on a drug-war raid, when I came across this post about Ron Paul, which links to this article from The New Republic. I do not doubt that Paul deeply regrets the comments in his old newsletters condemning Martin Luther King, Jr., and tolerating David Duke, whether Paul himself wrote those words or not, but, regardless of Paul's sincerity of repentance, his campaign for president is dead (even though few people ever seriously expected him to win). The great tragedy is that Paul is very often right about issues involving economics and civil liberties, and unfortunately the revelations will undermine his efforts to promote those ideas.

God Wins in Iowa

From The Colorado Freedom Report:

The big winner in the Iowan caucuses is Jesus Christ. Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama are the two most religious -- politically religious -- candidates of their parties. I'm surprised that those candidates came in first. However, I don't believe that they'll win the nominations (though I think it likely that Obama joins somebody else's ticket). Indeed, I would be stunned if either candidate made it to the general election. If both make it, that will demonstrate that this country is in worse shape than I thought, and that we are likely headed toward more expansive religious-based politics.

Here's why I don't think Huckabee or Obama will last. In late 2006, Time published a map titled, "Denomination Nation." If you select for "Mainline Protestants," you will find that Iowa is among the states most heavily populated by such Christians. West of Nebraska, the numbers drop off dramatically.

Huckabee's motto is "Faith. Family. Freedom." -- in that order. Huckabee leaves no doubt that he will interpret "freedom" through the lens of faith, which means that he will sacrifice genuine freedom to faith.

Under his "Issues" page "Faith and Politics," Huckabee writes, "My faith is my life -- it defines me. My faith doesn't influence my decisions, it drives them. For example, when it comes to the environment, I believe in being a good steward of the earth."

On the issue of abortion, Huckabee writes,

I support and have always supported passage of a constitutional amendment to protect the right to life. ... I have no desire to throw women in jail, I just want us to stop throwing babies in the garbage. ... With respect to stem cells, I am opposed to research on embryonic stem cells.

However, if Huckabee passes an amendment outlawing abortion, this will necessarily impose criminal penalties on women and/or their doctors. (I do not imagine that the amendment will read, "Pretty please don't have abortions; Congress shall pass no law enforcing this amendment.") Then real police with real guns will arrest real people and throw them into real jails, Huckabee's disingenuous "desires" notwithstanding.

It is unclear to me what exceptions Huckabee might allow. Would he outlaw all abortions from the moment the sperm enters the egg? What about cases of rape, incest, or dangers to the life of the mother? And who gets to make such calls? How many doctors will be called before the Inquisition to prove that an abortion was necessary to protect the woman's life? And how many women will be called to prove that their miscarriages were accidental?

However, even an abortion ban with numerous exceptions and light enforcement would severely violate the rights of pregnant women who do not wish to have a child. (The fact that many abortions result from irresponsible sex does not change this fact.) The sort of abortion ban that many Christians favor would outlaw abortions of fertilized eggs. Thus, the "morning after" pill would be outlawed, and, presumably, manufacture, distribution, possession, and use of such a pill would bring criminal penalties. Yet the position that a fertilized egg or a cluster of cells should be granted the same rights that you have is grounded on the Christian dogma that God infuses a fertilized egg with a soul. Such a policy imposes religion by political force.

Huckabee also wishes to outlaw certain types of medical research based on his religious beliefs. I don't know where Huckabee stands on issues of censorship and "faith-based" tax subsidies. (For further discussion on religion in politics, see my blog post on Fred Thompson and then link back from there.)

Aside from his rejection of the separation of church and state, Huckabee is a typical "moderate" left-wing statist. He endorses environmentalism through political force and better health through federal controls, as examples. Mark Joseph's December 31 column about Huckabee is telling:

The stunning and rapid ascendence of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has shocked prominent old-guard Washington Republicans and conservatives, leaving them shaking their heads, wondering how a social conservative with a fairly liberal record on issues like immigration, education, taxes and spending can possibly be commanding the allegiance of so many Christian conservative voters. ...

For Huckabee is an unreconstructed and unapologetic pre-1980 Republican who has more in common with William Jennings Bryan than Ronald Reagan and whose views expose the deep rift that has always existed between social and economic conservatives. ...

[T]he emergence of Huckabee and his hybrid conservative/liberal style may finally produce the much ballyhooed conservative crackup that so many commentators have been predicting.

Obama would expand national controls over virtually every aspect of our lives. Yet at least he talks about the separation of church and state. Yet he clearly believes that God has called him to use the power of the national government to carry out religious goals. The document, "Barack Obama on Faith," states that "God is constantly present in our lives..." And Obama wants to make sure of it. "Faith is a source of action for justice." In this context, "justice" is a euphemism for political controls to force people to obey Obama's version of Christian "charity." For some examples, see Obama's proposals on poverty. He wants to expand "career" subsidies, "create a green jobs corps," expand subsidies for "urban planning initiatives," increase the forced wage rate, etc. Obama also wants to impose "a new national health plan."

Obama is thus in tune with the socialist tradition. The difference is that he justifies his socialism by faith.

The election of Mike Huckabee or Barack Obama as President of the United States would constitute a national disaster. Fortunately, that's not likely to happen.