It’s also clear from an article in The Colorado Independent that this is only half of what the amendment’s authors intended.

“It’s intended to account for human beings who may be created through asexual reproduction in laboratories and used as raw material for research, organs, or stem cells. Fertilization would not have properly applied to asexually reproduced humans, but even asexually reproduced human beings have a definite biological beginning,” [Gualberto Garcia] Jones explained. (Jones heads the organization that initiated this year’s amendment)

That this law could be interpreted to include sperm is an ironic example of the law of unintended consequences.

The amendment’s final language, on which Colorado will vote in November 2010, is as follows:

SECTION 1. Article II of the constitution of the state of Colorado is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION to read:
SECTION 2. Person defined. As used in sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the term “person” shall apply to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.

So what does “biological development” mean? Last year’s amendment defined a person as starting with a fertilized egg (and it lost by a 3:1 margin), and the new amendment could be interpreted to mean the same – a zygote is a person.

But this time, the amendment’s language is even broader. The Independent article makes it clear that this was intentional on the part of the amendment’s authors. The language was written specifically to “to be more comprehensive in our definition of a person,” and the result is that, if passed, the amendment will outlaw abortion, many types of birth control, stem cell research, and could potentially outlaw fertility clinics.

“Beginning of the biological development.” That phrase may be perfectly clear to a conservative Christian abortion activist like Jones, lawyers and judges will have a more difficult time interpreting what it does to Colorado’s laws.

Last year, our own Dr. Slammy and commenters pointed out a number of the absurdities that went along with last year’s failed amendment, such as allowing a pregnant woman to drive in the HOV lane, the legal drinking age becomes 20 years, 3 months, sex with a pregnant woman becomes menage-a-trois, a woman who is not aware that she is pregnant while engaging in a harmful activity of any kind could be charged with neglect, and so on.

The new proposed amendment is even broader in its possible interpretation because a single cell – an egg – would be defined as a “person” this time. And as a result, the possible ramifications are even more farcical.

The problem is that it’s really hard to define when a “person’s” biological development starts. You could say that it starts when an egg is fertilized and be relatively safe (if it passes in 2010 and survives the inevitable legal challenges, that’s probably how this amendment would ultimately be interpreted). But it’s possible that the amendment would be interpreted more broadly. After all, that egg started its development years or decades before it was fertilized. If the egg is damaged, then the “person’s” development will be adversely affected. And damaged eggs happen all the time – they’re one of reasons for miscarriages and failures to conceive. Does that mean that we need to protect a woman’s children when they’re eggs in a girl toddler’s immature ovaries? And how, exactly, are we going to do that?

Are we willing to charge prepubescent girls with child neglect for daring to play soccer and risking ovary damage? What’s next, forcing women to wear petticoats and ride horses sidesaddle? Actually, I suspect that many of Jones’ supporters would find cultural regression to Victorian or Puritan values to be pleasantly refreshing.

And since a human can’t develop without the aid of sperm (cloning aside), does development start when intercourse and ejaculation provide the sperm? Or does it start in the man’s testicles? Or even before then? Damaged sperm are a lot more common than damage eggs – that’s the biological reason that men produce billions of them. Is each damaged sperm an example of child neglect? Should we charge a little league coach with manslaughter if he accidentally throws a baseball into a boy’s crotch with an errant pitch? And should urologists be prosecuted for accessory to murder for performing a vasectomy?

The zygote personhood amendment last year crashed and burned because Coloradans understood that it was a legal minefield of epic scale. This proposed personhood amendment is even worse. Any legislation that makes a minimum of 20,000 separate changes to Colorado law is going to have a huge number of unpredictable unintended consequences.

One of those unintended consequences will be that Colorado will become more of a laughingstock than it was during the Amendment 2 debacle decades ago, or than Kansas was after its school board voted to permit the teaching of “intelligent design.”

It will be in the voters’ hands in 2010. Hopefully they’ll make the right decision next year just as they did last year.

I’m referring, of course, to the “Lone Wolf” Flu. It’s precisely the sort of bug we’d expect to strike conservative talk show hosts across the nation – and it has – but lately it’s turned up in what were once considered to be some of the most objective and sanitary environments in the American media landscape.

I’ll stop torturing the metaphor now, lest it seem like I’m treating the subject too lightly. Instead, let’s examine a couple of news items that do considerable damage to the truth of our domestic terror problem. First, a June 13 AP story bylined by Devlin Barrett and Eileen Sullivan came across the wires with this headline: “Shootings show threat of ‘lone wolf’ terrorists.” And yesterday the Wall St. Journal joined in with “FBI Seeks to Target Lone Extremists,” which explained that “[l]one-wolf offenders continue to be of great concern to law enforcement.”

The problem, in a nutshell, is that the terrorists they’re characterizing as “lone wolves” are no such thing. Or, if they are, then the working definition of “lone wolf” is so badly broken that it’s beyond fixing. That phrase asks us to accept that killers like James von Brunn and Scott Roeder (and Eric Rudolph and Buford Furrow and Benjamin Smith and James Kopp and Jim David Adkisson) get to the point of politically motivated homicide all by themselves. It asks us to accept that these people have no context, no community, no ideological fellow-travelers whipping them on.

Which is bunk. David Neiwert has written a couple of pieces since the latest fatal case cropped up in the Holocaust Museum several days ago. As he explained on Friday, “these are not ‘isolated incidents’.”

As Potok explains, the “lone wolf” concept was popularized in the late 1980s by an Aryan Nations leader named Louis Beam as an extension of his strategy of “leaderless resistance.” One white supremacist, a fellow named Alex Curtis, even went so far as to develop a “point system” for lone wolves.

A 2003 piece by Jessica Stern in Foreign Affairs described how even Al Qaeda was finding the concept useful. And she explains its origins:

The idea was popularized by Louis Beam, the self-described ambassador-at-large, staff propagandist, and “computer terrorist to the Chosen” for Aryan Nations, an American neo-Nazi group. Beam writes that hierarchical organization is extremely dangerous for insurgents, especially in “technologically advanced societies where electronic surveillance can often penetrate the structure, revealing its chain of command.” In leaderless organizations, however, “individuals and groups operate independently of each other, and never report to a central headquarters or single leader for direction or instruction, as would those who belong to a typical pyramid organization.” Leaders do not issue orders or pay operatives; instead, they inspire small cells or individuals to take action on their own initiative.

The strategy was also inspired by at least one “lone wolf” shooter: Joseph Paul Franklin, a racist sniper who in the late 1970s and early 1980s killed as many as 20 people — mostly mixed-race couples — on a serial-murder spree, and attempted to assassinate both Vernon Jordan and Larry Flynt. (Franklin was also the inspiration for William Pierce’s Hunter, the follow-up novel to The Turner Diaries.)

As it turns out, we know a bit about these murderers, and the facts help us paint a picture of wolves who are anything but lonely.

• Buford was a member of the Aryan Nation.
• Smith was a member of the white supremacist Creativity Movement.
• Kopp was a member of the anti-abortionist Lambs of Christ.
• Rudolph isn’t tied to a specific hate group, but seems to have had ample support from a variety of sources.
• Adkisson was a fan of hate-talkers Sean Hannity, Michael Savage and Bill O’Reilly.
• Roeder was either a member of or had ties to a variety of right-wing organizations, including the Montana Freemen, the Sovereign Citizen Movement, the Army of God and Operation Rescue.

Like all these other “lone wolves,” von Brunn was hardly an island, either.

The conclusion we’ve all hopefully reached about “lone wolf” terrorists is this: just because the rest of the pack isn’t physically present doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

Sara Robinson summed it up nicely:

The assassins themselves are ratting you out. They’re telling us, straight up, that they were inspired to act by the hate radio talkers that you empowered — one of whom is now the de facto head of the Republican party. They got it from media outlets owned by your biggest donors. They got it from bloggers who receive daily talking points faxed in from the GOP. They got it from activists representing causes that would have never become causes in the first place if the issues hadn’t been politically expedient for you.

Beyond that: You’ve already admitted your own complicity. When the Department of Homeland Security expressed their worries about right- wing extremist violence last April, practically every conservative pundit in the country went into a righteous fit. DHS never named anyone directly, so it was astonishing how many of you on the right were so quick to step up and claim that that memo was slandering you, personally and collectively. Since you were so eager to claim that that memo was all about you, now that the violence has come to pass, we’re well justified in holding you to that.

The Press as Typhoid Mary

Back to the AP story, which unfortunately provides a warm, nutrient-rich pool in which the “lone wolf” meme can replicate with abandon. In a number of respects, it might be argued that the reporters and editors toe the journalistic line in ways that are more than defensible. The term is embedded in quotation marks in the header and in the first occurence in the body of the story. They interview and dutifully quote experts, and we have no reason to believe that FBI officials have any particular ideological axe to grind with their use of the term.

The WSJ story, authored by Gary Fields and Evan Perez, differs from the AP article primarily in the fact that it doesn’t even feel a need for quotation marks.

Despite the insight each story provides into the FBI’s attempts to head off these kinds of “isolated” attacks, I find myself wanting more in the way of perspective from the reporters. A lot more. As the FBI frames the issue, a “lone wolf” crime is apparently defined in opposition to one “planned by a trained terrorist network.” This taxonomy is probably useful in some contexts, but here it lacks a certain … granularity. Even the Southern Poverty Law Center spokesman quoted by the AP privileges the term.

In the end, the reader comes away with the idea that these killers are, as a matter of fact, solitary agents. Both agencies lend credence to this misinformation by failing to challenge the underlying factual inaccuracy, and in doing so they inadvertently serve the cause of the “leaderless resistance.“ When our most reliable news institutions say that these incidents are isolated, that they’re not part of a larger movement, that there’s no collective organization behind the attacks, it provides cover for a thriving, blood-thirsty community of wolves.

Put a little more aggressively, we might argue that such weak reportage provides aid and comfort for terrorists. No, that’s not a terribly civil accusation, and I’m certainly not arguing that Fields, Perez, Barrett, Sullivan or their editors are in some way intending to promote or enable the actions of these freak-right loons. Nonetheless, their failure to fully and clearly identify the context in which these actions occurred has an effect – intended or not.

If their hesitance to pull that particular trigger is somehow related to a concern over the appearance of bias (far more likely with the AP than the WSJ, I’d think), I’d offer two responses. First, the Homeland Security report that stressed the threat of homegrown right-wing terror was generated by the Bush Administration. Second, “balance” is never an excuse to sidestep the truth.

If we’re going to effectively address the causes of our recent domestic terror epidemic the Lone Wolf Flu must be eradicated. Step one: our mainstream media has to stop spreading the virus.

If you have read the book A Hundred Little Hitlers: The Death of a Black Man, the Trial of a White Racist, and the Rise of the Neo-Nazi Movement in America by Elinor Langer, you’ll no doubt agree with her (though no white power advocate, she) that the godfather of American white power, Tom Metzger, was railroaded. But this Wikipedia passage accurately explains in brief how he was convicted:

The group was eventually bankrupted as the result of a civil lawsuit centered on its involvement in the 1988 murder of Mulugeta Seraw, an Ethiopian man who came to the United States to attend college. In 1988, white power skinheads affiliated to WAR [White Aryan Resistance] were convicted of killing Seraw and sent to prison. Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center filed a civil suit against him, arguing that WAR influenced Seraw’s killers by encouraging their group East Side White Pride to commit violence.

At the trial, WAR national vice president Dave Mazzella testified on how the Metzgers instructed WAR members to commit violence against minorities. Tom and John Metzger were found civilly liable under the doctrine of vicarious liability, in which one can be liable for a tort committed by a subordinate or by another person who is taking instructions. The jury returned the largest civil verdict in Oregon history at the time—$12.5 million—against Metzger and WAR. The Metzgers’ house was seized, and most of WAR’s profits go to paying off the judgment.

More at Memeorandum.

______________

Dr. George Tiller was murdered at his church this morning. According to the New York Times:

Dr. Tiller, who had performed abortions since the 1970s, had long been a lightning rod for controversy over the issue of abortion, particularly in Kansas, where abortion opponents regularly protested outside his clinic and sometimes his home and church. In 1993, he was shot in both arms by an abortion opponent but recovered.

He had also been the subject of many efforts at prosecution, including a citizen-initiated grand jury investigation. In the latest such effort, in March, Dr. Tiller was acquitted of charges that he had performed late-term abortions that violated state law.

The shooting occurred at around 10 a.m. (Central time) at Reformation Lutheran Church on the city’s East Side, Dr. Tiller’s regular church.

MSNBC’s Web site is reporting that authorities have a suspect in custody, although no details are yet available.

Of course, we’re not a breaking news site and that’s not what this story is about. Instead, let’s speculate a bit.

Here’s the wager: the murderer will turn out to be a right-wing Christian terrorist. I’ll also offer a side bet: his media consumption includes the like of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, Bill O’Reilly and/or Glenn Beck.

If I’m wrong, check this space. I’ll gladly post an update noting my mistake. But as of this moment, would you bet against me?

Let’s hypothesize that I’m right for a second. What does it mean? Well, in the short term it probably means nothing for the doctor, his family, colleagues and friends. Whatever the reason, he’s dead, and tragically so, and at times like this the what probably means a whole lot more than the why.

From a big-picture perspective, though, from the perspective of the culture war that has claimed another victim, the slobberingly ignorant wide-right nutjobs have given the cause of Progress another martyr, and in doing so have made the case against their reactionary jihad a little clearer than it was before. Even in a nation as unrelentingly bassackwards as the US, the tide of enlightenment is slowly but surely washing them and their violent, Stone Age ideology away. The repudiation of their 8,000 year-old code of ethics in the last election may well make them more dangerous for a time, but with each passing day more and more mainline Americans are standing and looking them dead in the eye, at last seeing them for what they are.

Your gutless thugs may assassinate a librul or two in church every now and again, especially if you’re sneaky enough to catch them unawares. You may win a school board battle or two. But the war? The war is lost. It’s not about if, merely when.

I won’t bother with the arguments over why the Jesus’s Jihadis are doing what they’re doing. We know those details,  and our friend Sara Robinson predicted this very sort of terrorism less than a week ago. Besides, I’ve already had my say on why we’re not having an honest conversation on abortion itself, and so far there’s been no evidence whatsoever suggesting that I’m wrong.

All I’ll do is say, with 100% certainty, that if I’m right about what happened this morning in Wichita, our wild-eyed war god-worshiping right wing has done little more than pound another nail into its own coffin.

UPDATE 1: Operation Rescue is apparently making the same assumptions that I am, offering a faux-condemnation of the assassination:

The anti-abortion group Operation Rescue, which has led numerous demonstrations at Tiller’s clinic, condemned the shooting as a “cowardly act.”

“Operation Rescue has worked for years through peaceful, legal means, and through the proper channels to see him brought to justice,” the group said in a statement. It offered its prayers for Tiller’s family, “that they will find comfort and healing that can only be found in Jesus Christ.”

Why would I question the sincerity of the statement, you ask?

On its Web site, Operation Rescue refers to Tiller as a “monster” who has “been able to get away with murder.” And Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry, who is no longer affiliated with the group, called Tiller “a mass murderer.”

Find the dumbest mob possible, whip them into a lather, point them at Satan’s personal emissary on Earth, and then play innocent when the predicatble happens.

Sure, why not.

UPDATE 2: Hmmm. This isn’t officially confirmed, but if it proves to be true … well, everything I said above, times 10.

KMBC-TV in Kansas City reported that the suspect had a post-it note with the phone number of anti-abortion group Operation Rescue in his car, however that group issued a statement this morning denouncing the shooting.

My wife’s wise words notwithstanding, they’re representative of those who view abortion as a women’s rights issue. But to pro-lifers, that concern is dwarfed by one much larger: preventing murder. Furthermore, to them, a woman’s right to control her own body not only palls before the need to save a life, but is indicative of the me-first syndrome that threatens to rend the fabric of society as sure as abortion does.

As an unambiguous proponent of abortion, I feel that I can afford to give pro-lifers the benefit of the doubt. Let’s assume that they actually are more interested in saving lives than keeping women in their place. Also, out of respect to pro-lifers, let’s drag out that old war-horse of a question –- is abortion murder? — and flog it again.

My personal spiritual exploration has led me to conclude that life may begin at conception, but strictly as a seed. Pro-lifers need to give their deity more credit: Would a just God insert a soul into an undeveloped body and brain?

What do pro-lifers think a soul would be doing in a fetus that size during the first two trimesters? Twiddling its thumbs? Maybe, if they were more developed. Life in a fetus is the equivalent of a coma.

Second, pro-choicers, however, need to cede that there really is a “cide” side to abortion, as in infanticide. A hint of abandoning the newborn on the steppes. However, the extinguishment quotient is less than in euthanizing a pet.

Running from it only encourages that tiny seed of denied guilt over abortion to grow like the aborted fetus doesn’t. Of course, making the case to pro-lifers that “It’s just like putting a sick dog to sleep” will only add insult to injury. But it’s of immense benefit to those pro-choicers who like to think that the issue of human life is entirely extraneous to abortion.

The Real Reason It’s Called a Mothership

Meanwhile, aboard a mothership on the edge of our solar system, an alien version of an ob-gyn wields a long pipette. To an attending doctor, he transmits: “Aren’t earthling abortion quarrels quaint? The energy earthlings squander over them would be better spent saving their ecosphere from the same kind of certain destruction that ours suffered.

“Otherwise, within a generation, the whole abortion argument will be moot. Earth’s spoiled environment will ravage their females’ ovaries and render them sterile, just as happened with ours.”

Bending to his task, he asks, “Is the earth woman sufficiently distended?”

When his assistant nods, he inserts the alien sperm.

Once the doctor removes the pipette and straightens, his assistant turns to him.

“Wait a minute. Then who’s going to supply us with eggs and carry our fetuses to full term?”

…in 2004 Warren declared that marriage, reproductive choice, and stem cell research were “non-negotiable” issues for Christian voters and has admitted that the main difference between himself and James Dobson is a matter of tone.  He criticized Obama’s answers at the Faith Forum he hosted before the election and vowed to continue to pressure him to change his views on the issue of reproductive choice.  He came out strongly in support of Prop 8, saying “there is no need to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease 2 percent of our population … This is not a political issue — it is a moral issue that God has spoken clearly about.” He’s declared that those who do not believe in God should not be allowed to hold public office.

“Tone,” my well-toned ass. At the risk of reopening some delicate old rhetorical wounds, the difference between Warren and James Dobson/Jerry Falwell/Pat Robertson is lipstick.

Oh, and he also believes that God wants us to whack Ahmadinejad. Good thing for him that Warren is a moderate, huh? Just imagine what a real conservative Christian would want to do to him.

So, what is Obama thinking here? Possibilities include:

1: The Uber-Unity Angle: I know Obama is hell-bent on being a man for ALL the people, ALL the time, regardless of whatever sorts of barking loonery they profess great faith in, and I’m sure this is part-and-parcel of his realpolitik theory about getting us past our partisan divisions. I’ve written before about the ways in which our power-elites have played us against each other, and I’m not a fan of artificial divisions. But at the same time, I don’t think we want everybody on the team – not unless they join on the right terms. There are people in America who don’t need to be courted or united, they need to be changed, and until this happens you’re inviting disaster.

2: The Strictly Personal Angle: Maybe Pastor Dan is right – maybe Barack just likes the guy. I don’t know that this makes me feel a whole lot better, but by the same token, no politician ever got elected by pandering to the likes of me.

3: The Use ‘Em and Lose ‘Em Angle: Perhaps Obama is just about tossing the fundagelicals a bone to make them feel like he’s representing them, too. If so, Warren doing an invocation is something I can live with as long as that’s all he’s doing. I won’t like it (listen, I’ve read the Constitution and Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists, so to my understanding the word “God” should never occur in any remotely official legal context) but if this is the extent of Warren’s involvement in the next four to eight years of my life I suppose I’ll hold my nose and deal with it. But if this well-heeled neo-Puritan becomes an intimate consultant and policy driver I might not be quite as forgiving. Nor should you.

Whether it’s 1, 2, 3, all of the above or none, this is a bad move by Obama. You don’t effectively promote unity and progress by handing the show over to a guy who has offended every American with a working brain. So – off to a bad start. Maybe the change we can believe in comes later on the card.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have an inauguration to plan for and I can’t find my Ouija board or my official Increase Mather prayer book anywhere….

This time, though, Crane (who’s battling through the early stages of Alzheimer’s) breaks through to a moment of pristine, Emmy-worthy clarity. In a brilliantly crafted scene, he explains to Shore that

You pro-choice people, you need Roe vs. Wade. You’re desperate for it. Not because you’re sure of your opinion, but because you’re not. You need to cling to that ruling as moral validation for a position you’re not entirely comfortable with, deep down.

Denny Crane, indeed.

There’s more than a grain of truth in Crane’s accusation. Pro-lifers have the luxury of absolute moral certainty, you see. Life begins at conception, they insist, and therefore abortion is murder. Period. And life is the most sacred thing on Earth. Is this formulation without its problems? Of course not – it’s about as inane as are all incredibly simple answers to incredibly complex questions. But it is simple, and if you’ve ever been to a pro-life rally you understand that this crowd is not inherently drawn to complexities.

Pro-choicers? Well, the pro-choice side of the argument is a tad more complicated because it’s not really about abortion at all. Let’s be clear on something: pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion. I have never in my life met a single human being who was pro-abortion. Not one. Such a person may exist – we’re a nation of over 300 million people, after all, so somewhere out there a freak-fringe analogue to Fred Phelps may be running loose. But so far I haven’t met this person. (My fellow Scrogue, Dr. Wendy Redal, advises me that Warren Hern of the Boulder Abortion Clinic may come close to fitting that bill, at least in the eyes of some.)

So while the two camps disagree violently on what the law should be, they have one very important thing in common: pro-lifers and all pro-choicers hate abortion. Just about all of them. The problem is that the pro-choice camp is forced to confront complexity. While abortion is bad, how do we legislate against individual freedoms? More to the point, whom do we trust to so legislate?

This is where the rubber hits the road. The truth that we don’t talk about very often is that a number of folks on the pro-choice side of the street are extremely conflicted. Many, I suspect, are uneasy with the proposition that abortion, in all contexts, should be treated as a simple matter of choice. However, they recognize the pro-life movement for what it is – an insidious theocractic wedge into governance – and they believe it to be worse, on the whole, than abortion.

It’s probably safe to say that a healthy majority of pro-choicers think this way about the anti-abortion crowd. Some of us perhaps know a thoughtful, conscientious pro-life advocate who has arrived at the position without the aid of reactionary theology and who craves a solution that doesn’t trash our individual liberties. But if we do, this person is the rarest minority. In point of fact, nearly 100% of the visible opposition to Roe v. Wade in America emanates from socially conservative evangelical Christianity. I’d probably be overreaching were I to suggest that most of these people would gladly subjugate the Constitution to their ministers’ various interpretations of the Bible (however ill-informed they may be), but by the same token you’d be naive to pretend that there isn’t enough of that very dynamic to concern those of us who think Jefferson meant what he damned well said about the wall between church and state.

Bottom line: there are a lot of pro-choicers in America whose positions have very little, if anything at all, to do with abortion per se. Instead, they “cling to that ruling” because they do not, cannot, will not trust those on the other side of the police line with their liberties. Nor should they. Those who would legislate based on facile, tragically misunderstood, millennia-old mythologies must not, under any circumstances, be emboldened in their quest to legally codify America’s status as a Christian nation – not as they define “Christian.”

What I believe. Sort of.

To this point I have been speaking, perhaps too generally, on behalf of others. So let me talk more directly about what and how I think.

First, do I believe that abortion is wrong? Maybe, but “wrong” is a loaded term. Wrong by whose standards? I believe abortion is usually a very bad thing, because at the bare minimum it exacts a lasting toll on the woman having it. There aren’t any occasions I can think of where an abortion is a cause for celebration. The only times I’d count abortion as “not so bad, on the whole,” are in cases of rape or incest, or where the woman’s life is threatened or where the fetus proves to have some form of birth defect.

Yes, I’m generally okay with abortion in the case of certain kinds of physical and mental defects. Each day children are born under circumstances guaranteeing that their lives will be miserable. I find that abhorrent. Life is a remarkable thing, but a life of torture is worse than death. Mercy, and an enlightened sense of responsibility toward those doomed to suffering, this is a higher value, I believe.

I certainly do not believe that abortion is a sin, though, primarily because I reject the foundations from which the current use of the word “sin” arises. By now I hope I’m clear on this subject: your religion and your conscience are yours, but you have no right whatsoever to export your religious beliefs onto others. If you have reasoned yourself to a pro-life moral position, I respect that and we can talk about it in good faith. If you believe it because somebody told you that’s what Jesus thinks, we have nothing to talk about, and you absolutely should not be allowed anywhere near a policy-making apparatus.

Do I believe that life begins at conception? No. At least, not in any way that’s relevant or actionable from a policy perspective. Depending on how you define things, life may begin before conception – I mean, eggs and sperm are alive, right? Is this really a road we want our various legislatures wandering down?

What I’m a lot more concerned about is viability – at what point is the fetus capable of living outside the womb? Do I have a problem forbidding the aborting of a viable fetus? Well, unless we’re talking about one of the instances I note above, maybe not. But these kinds of procedures are far more rare than most pro-lifers would have you believe.

In any case, I’m not a scientist, nor am I a physician. I’m willing to take guidance on this question from those who are experts in the study of physiology and medicine. And yes, I do think it’s possible to have this conversation productively and in good faith.

So, I do believe we should get rid of abortion, then? Well, I think we’d all be better off if there were so few abortions that the subject pretty much never came up, and that when there was an abortion the circumstances surrounding it were wholly uncontroversial. But overturning Roe v. Wade would no more accomplish this than the volumes of statutes currently on the books are preventing murders, robberies, rapes, child abuse and jaywalking.

So How Do We Get Rid of Abortions, Then?

We Americans have a bad habit of addressing the symptoms instead of curing the disease. Unfortunately, you’re never going to treat a sucking chest wound with a band-aid.

The first steps to eliminating abortion in America – assuming that’s really what you’re after – require us to address the actual causes: poverty and sub-standard education. Levitt and Dubner do a nice job of examining the socio-economic conditions surrounding abortion in Freakonomics, and let’s simply note here that if abortion is a scourge in the United States, it’s not the educated and well-off neighborhoods that are bearing the brunt of the damage. To be sure, privileged girls from the best schools in the lily-whitest gated communities in America’s most respected and white-flightest suburban enclaves do get themselves into the family way on occasion, but there are few more effective prophylactics, if you will, against unwanted pregnancy than the family and communal stability engendered by top-notch education and a clear sense of opportunity in life.

Unfortunately, we’re coming off what may prove to be the eight dumbest years of governance in our history. The decade of the 2000s will not be remembered for advancing learning in our society, and it’s hard to find a better example of educational malfeasance than “abstinence-only” sex ed. Bush and his social conservative henchmen have pushed the hell out of this particular anti-educational affront to coherent policy-making, and at this stage the only controversy remaining is whether abstinence-only makes no difference or whether it makes things worse.

I expect that, upon his inauguration, we’ll see Barack Obama confronting these issues in his social and economic agendas, although whether his administration will genuinely work toward a level playing field and universal opportunity or if it will simply settle for a few cosmetic nips and tucks around the fugly spots remains to be seen. However, if we get serious about making the most of every mind and turning some of our rhetoric about how all children can grow up to do whatever they set those minds to into actual reality, then we will see dramatic drops in the abortion rate (along with corresponding decreases in all kinds of anti-social and criminal behavior).

And for our pro-life readers: that’s what you really want, right? Right?

The Real Argument

This whole thesis is one I’ve been carrying around for quite some time. It has long been obvious that our nation’s most violently divisive argument wasn’t really about abortion at all, and the basic dishonesty of this, of our collective willing suspension of disbelief, has griped me to no end. To be clear: there is no disagreement in America today, nor has there ever been, about abortion. There is almost nothing that we agree on more unanimously, in fact.

Instead, abortion is the field on which a battle is being waged. It’s as though we’ve confused the turf at the Meadowlands with the game of football. Put another way, the abortion “debate” is about abortion in roughly the same way that the Civil War was about real estate in Manassas, Gettysburg and Chattanooga.

What we call the abortion debate is better understood as a conflict over human rights. More deeply, it is about Modernity vs. Fundamentalism. Are we a nation governed by reason and law, or are we a nation governed by the priesthood? Do we believe that individuals are endowed with certain inalienable rights, or do we trust TV preachers to tell us what rights God wants us to have? Will we insist on a system that adapts and evolves as our society grows and learns, or will we cling desperately to a system that refuses to acknowledge that change even exists?

Put bluntly, will we live in the 21st Century or the 16th?

I’m willing to have debates, so long as they’re conducted intelligently and in good faith. But for too long we’ve been conflating things, tangling ourselves up in rhetorical sucker plays and refusing to acknowledge what’s really on the agenda. That has to change if we’re ever to make any progress toward resolving our fundamental differences in a way that allows us to move forward together.

I’m game, but I wonder how many are with me.

Change We Can Live With

Obama will take office on the promise of “change we can believe in.” He promises that things will be different, that we’ll step past the partisan divisions that have set us at each other’s throats for so long.

So maybe this is the moment. Maybe this is our opportunity to find a way of addressing abortion in a way that is legitimately about abortion – that is, to discuss it in terms of science and the deeper social conditions that underlie it instead of in terms of reactionary, fear-driven theology.

Before this can happen, though, President Obama will need to restore government’s respect for the Constitution, a document that has suffered tremendous abuse in recent years. Governmental research functions will need to be returned to the control of actual researchers and we’ll have to stop pretending that anti-science is actually science. No more fundamentalist litmus tests, no more faux “debates” about facts that are settled, no more obeisance to those who think that Leviticus is a peer-reviewed journal.

Maybe now is the time for this. Or … maybe not – I mean, how hopeful should I be as long as Obama is still taking Rick Warren seriously? (For a wonderfully detailed look at the … ummm, quagmire … facing Obama, see Sarah Posner’s new American Prospect analysis on “The Truth About Abortion Reduction.”)

I believe that when these things are accomplished, we’ll all be surprised at how many people are willing to sit down at the table and honestly discuss their opinions about issues that have heretofore not been open to discussion.

Denny Crane was right: many of us are uneasy about being forced into an absolutist position over something we know to be nuanced and complex. I, for one, hope the time is approaching when intelligent people can begin untangling those complexities in an environment that’s free of suspicion and fear.

Agents will be allowed to use informants to infiltrate lawful groups, engage in prolonged physical surveillance and lie about their identity while questioning a subject’s neighbors, relatives, co-workers and friends.

[The EPA is] expected to issue a final rule that would make it easier for coal-fired power plants to locate near national parks in defiance of longstanding Congressional mandates to protect air quality in areas of special natural or recreational value. Interior also is awaiting E.P.A.’s concurrence on a proposal that would make it easier for mining companies to dump toxic mine wastes in valleys and streams.

Existing law allows doctors and nurses to refuse to participate in an abortion. These changes would extend the so-called right to refuse to a wide range of health care workers and activities including abortion referrals, unbiased counseling and provision of birth control pills or emergency contraception, even for rape victims.

At the time I wondered why he didn’t just wait until after the election to push through these draconian orders. It turns out he was trying to sneak in under the deadline so that these changes can’t be easily reversed.

Apparently, regulations that aren’t finalized, meaning signed as an executive order within the last 60 days, can be easily reversed by Congress in an unfilibustable up-or-down vote. Since Democrats have a strong hold on both houses, that could be easily done. But orders that are issued beyond that 60 day limit can only be undone after investigations, comment periods, reviews, committees and sub-committees and the like, which could take years.

But hold on to your official White-House-branded pen – that’s not all she wrote. A clause in the Congressional Review Act of 1996 that Clinton signed into law stated that “any regulation finalized within 60 legislative days of congressional adjournment is considered to have been legally finalized on the 15th legislative day of the new Congress, likely sometime in February. Congress then has 60 days to review it and reverse it with a joint resolution that can’t be filibustered in the Senate.”

That means that Executive Orders signed within the last six months can be eliminated with a quick party-line vote. This even applies to regulations that have already been enacted.

So you don’t have to worry about all that scary quote block above you, or any future lame moves that duck might do. The only thing left for Bush is figure out how many pardons to give out.

Update: It looks like the MSM is picking up on this. Here is the Associated Press’s take on it.

That’s the debate I’ve been having with an old college friend whom I’ve recently reconnected with. He’s become a Catholic since we knew one another back in the ‘80s, and is a deep-thinking, deeply principled man. He will not be voting for Barack Obama in November. Nor will he be voting for John McCain. He will vote, but he will cast a blank ballot. He urges me, if I am serious about my moral commitments, to do likewise. Neither candidate, in his opinion, cares enough about ‘life issues’ to merit an affirmative vote.

The New York Times reports that other Catholics are struggling with what do with in the upcoming election. The most troublesome issue for many remains abortion. Some, like Joe Biden, believe we must make accommodations for differing views in a pluralistic society, despite his own embrace of personhood at conception. Others, like my old friend, see Biden’s support for legal access to abortion as no different from espousing the Holocaust – if not in deed, then in complicity.

Can a Catholic possibly vote for a Democratic candidate who has regularly received a 100% approval rating from Planned Parenthood and indeed, as a state senator, voted against an Illinois version of the Born Alive Infant Protection bill passed by Congress? Can I, as a person of faith who believes all life is sacred? I am going to answer ‘yes,’ and in so doing, proclaim myself also a utilitarian and a realist, with all the moral conundra that pragmatism involves.

If you’ll stay with me in this somewhat lengthy exposition, I’ll do my best to lead you through my reasoning. Along the way, I want to call liberals and conservatives alike to a fresh engagement with these most critical of issues, questions of the nature of our humanity and our obligations to one another, scrutiny of our mutual hypocrises, and a renewal of our willingness to tackle these profound dilemmas in a manner that can help us reach “common ground for the common good,” an expression used often at the inaugural Faith Council caucus at the Democratic National Convention, and at the DNC panel discussion of Democrats for Life. Only by refusing platitudes and rejecting ideology will we ever begin to achieve progress on these divisive concerns that continue to rend our body politic and erode our civility.

Although I am not Catholic, I am drawn to the “seamless garment” perspective that proclaims a holistic reverence for all life, and calls for a consistent pro-life ethic that seeks to protect life wherever it is threatened, whether by abortion, war, poverty, racism, capital punishment or euthanasia. I share the goal expressed by Consistent Life, a network of progressive pro-life interests, that what we are trying to achieve is “a revolution in thinking and feeling, an affirmation of peace and nonviolence, an infinite gentleness, a value for the life, happiness and welfare of every person, and all the political and structural changes that will bring this about.”

Within that overarching moral framework I see complexity, particularly when the pro-life interests of individuals conflict. Which is more deserving of protection, embryonic stem cells, or an adult suffering and ultimately dying from Parkinson’s disease? Is it ever justifiable to sacrifice thousands of civilians in a war to resist an evil regime that would otherwise kill even more innocents? Can one insist on the birth of all conceived babies while at the same time support, even laud, the use of capital punishment in a race- and class-biased system where innocent people are wrongly killed? Are the lives of babies lost to abortion more important than the lives of AIDS orphans in Africa lost to poverty and disease and warfare? Is one murder by intention and the other murder by neglect, and are there therefore moral distinctions between the two?

The challenge for shaping public policy in a manner that honors life amid such philosophically complex and often conflicting “life interests” does not lend itself to cut-and-dried, black-and-white terms or positions. What does “pro-choice” really mean? Does the fetus get a choice? Does it deserve one? Are conservatives willing to create a social structure in which a mother can choose life and be confident that the quality of her child’s life is also part of that ethos? Are liberals willing to examine the moral inconsistency of a worldview in which prairie dogs are accorded more value than unborn human life? There are plenty of folks in Boulder, Colorado, where I live, who regularly campaign for the welfare of the proliferating rodents yet refuse to recognize that a woman’s “right to privacy” involves a private choice to kill developing human life, which is what happens when you “terminate a pregnancy.” Their opponents on the right, however, disdain the importance of protecting the very ecosystems on which all life relies, failing to recognize, for instance, that the prairie dog is a keystone species whose presence contributes to a rich diversity of life that sustains us. Often, those who are first to speak against abortion are the same people, like Sarah Palin, who are also quickest to advocate destruction of the very environment that a Christian worldview deems God’s sacred creation, to be stewarded with care for all generations (for more on this, see Tom Yulsman’s 9/17 post).

The irony, the non sequiturs, the hypocrisy, are enough to turn anyone into a cynic, or at least further jade an already polarized society unwilling to engage one another in good faith on these enduring concerns that continue to split our electorate. Is it foolish to speak of “common ground for the common good”? Can we, amidst a field of always-flawed candidates, still find enough faith to vote in relatively good conscience and hope that within the parameters of our decisions, we can work toward policy outcomes that reflect at least some of our basic shared values? In this regard, should we not be able to agree on at least the fundamental premise that reducing the number of abortions in this country, or the number of lives lost to war, is a desirable thing?

To do that, we must summon the willingness, the energy, and the character to plunge into further discussion on life issues in a manner that seeks such bridge-building. The Democratic Party was right to include events such as the first-ever interfaith caucus, and to sanction Democrats for Life, as part of this essential effort. At the same time, the party is home to secularists as well, with whom we – including conservative Republicans — must co-exist.

As Jim Wallis, moderator the DNC Faith Council, said, the answer to the religious right is not a religious left, but a moral center. But few on either side seem invested in trying to get there.

My sense on the streets of Denver during the DNC was that many convention-goers were tired of, dismissive, even bored with the graphic photos of dismembered fetuses held high on signs outside the gates to the Pepsi Center and displayed in bloody, brutal relief on the sides of the Operation Rescue truck driving through downtown. Some turned away but most ignored the images, including that of a perfect, miniature hand laid against a quarter, perhaps the size of George Washington’s head. More chose to pay attention to equally gruesome photos of Falun Gong torture victims, whose faces were methodically burned by electric batons, or whose genitals were torn off.

I was arrested by all of these images, which were paraded side by side along a full block of 15th Street. Though I adamantly reject the harsh, often hostile efforts to engage passersby by many anti-abortion demonstrators in Denver (I was told by one that I was “going to hell” when I challenged him to use more Christ-like methods in his delivery), I just as adamantly believe there is a place for their message, including such photos. If liberals are going to argue against Chinese terrorist methods used in religious suppression but support the suctioning of late-term fetuses’ brains while their heads are exposed outside their mothers’ bodies, there needs to be an honest, explicit engagement with that apparent moral disconnect, and non-combative efforts to explain why. If conservatives are going to reject all embryonic stem cell research, they need to make a careful case as to why the sacredness of those microscopic cells is greater than that of my uncle who is declining with Parkinson’s and will likely see a premature end to his life as a result.

And if Senator Obama agrees that it is infanticide and a crime when a new mother discards her newborn infant in a trash can, yet supports doing nothing when a fetus survives an abortion and is placed in a medical waste can, then he needs to be forced into an engagement with the moral incongruity of that position. Obama has claimed that the reason he did not support a similar Illinois state version of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act that was simultaneously passed by a unanimous vote in the U.S. Senate is because of a concern (and I am paraphrasing here) that it would create an undue burden on the mother who sought the abortion, and would create a slippery-slope situation potentially leading to an undermining of legal abortion access of any kind.

Obama has claimed that his position on abortion is one that respects the plurality of moral views in American society. He wrote in The Audacity of Hope, “If I am opposed to abortion for religious reasons but seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.”

With regard to the overwhelming bipartisan support for the Born Alive Infants Act, Obama is clearly outside the critical mass that deems that fully born infants should not be left to lie alone to die. Obama’s critics are correct: he is in effect saying that the potential erosion of a woman’s right to choose is more important than the life of a baby that emerges alive from an abortion. It is more important to let that baby die than to jeopardize – even hypothetically — abortion rights.

I could not disagree more. And yet I am going to vote for him in November. As my Catholic friend beseeches me to explain, “Why??” How could I?

And there is where my pragmatism comes in. On virtually every other issue that ties into the preciousness and quality of life, an Obama presidency would be more beneficial than another round of failed Republican policies and philosophies that serve the rich and powerful far more than those most in need. From the economy to health care to energy to climate change and the very future of our ability to live on this planet, an Obama administration would be more likely to effect policy change that would realize the social justice aims that are so important to many voters of faith, including my own progressive Christian faith.

One prominent Catholic is in agreement with me, and it’s gotten him banned from taking communion, just as Joe Biden has been. Douglas Kmiec is a professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine University and a former law faculty member at Notre Dame and Catholic University. He was also head of the Office of Legal Counsel for Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush. He spoke on an interfaith panel at the DNC Faith Council where he provided an answer to that posed in the title of his new book, “Can a Catholic Support Him? Asking the Big Question About Barack Obama.”

Kmiec has stunned fellow conservatives with his endorsement of Obama, acknowledging as he addressed Democrats of faith at the DNC that “It’s unusual to be here.” Challenging those “who are making the argument under the guise of faith that it is a sin to vote for Barack Obama,” Kmiec has come to see Obama as “the best representative of the Catholic ‘path of life’” and a man of “deep faith…great intelligence, great integrity and great honesty.”

“That label of pro-life has to be a commitment to all of life, to a culture of life,” Kmiec said, contending that such a culture includes things like a living wage, adequate shelter, access to health care, and a recognition that we must live in community together.

But how does Kmiec, or how do I, or any other voter concerned about abortion as a moral crisis, ignore Obama’s views on such a central component of a consistent life ethic? We don’t. We search for and work together for that common ground. A Catholic, Kmiec argues in his book, can support the “non-negotiability of protecting human life” through the use of “imaginative means within Catholic social teaching to supply that protection.”

Kmiec quotes Obama:

“And so for me, the goal right now should be – and this is where I think we can find common ground, and by the way I have now inserted this into the Democratic Party platform – is how do we reduce the number of abortions, because the fact is that although we’ve had a president who is opposed to abortions over the last eight years [not to mention a majority of Supreme Court justice and federal judges who are Republican appointees – my addition], abortions have not gone down.”

Kmiec continues:

“If Republican Faith Partisans [those who condemn a vote for Obama as a sin – my addition] were actually capable of protecting human life through their singular focus on overturning Roe, the claim might have greater plausibility.”

Here again my pragmatic bent enters in, yet it is not incompatible with my overarching philosophical/religious orientation: I do not believe that Obama’s extreme views in support of abortion rights — and they are extreme, if we look at a basic bell curve of American opinion, with Obama on one end and Sarah Palin on the other – are likely to gain real traction in Congress or among the judiciary. Nor, for that matter, would Palin’s or McCain’s positions be likely to be turned into policy, given the moderate views held by most Americans. I do not anticipate that the Freedom of Choice Act will be passed, nor that Roe vs. Wade will be reversed, and even if it were, how likely is it that real inroads would be made in reducing the abortion rate as a result? The matter would merely be thrown back to the states for even more contentious and vitriolic political wrangling. The approach advocated by Obama and embraced by Kmiec, to enact policies that would reduce current abortion rates, is much more likely in the realm of political reality to be effective.

Polls continually show that Americans see abortion as a complex, multi-faceted moral issue. Most make distinctions between taking a morning-after pill that would expunge a fertilized egg versus a partial-birth procedure that sucks the brains out of a potentially viable, developed baby’s head. And most see a difficult continuum of developmental stages, each with ramifications for the morality of “choice,” in between. In a 2008 Gallup poll that asked voters whether they supported abortion in “all circumstances, some circumstances, or no circumstances,” respondents came down largely in the middle.

Many Christians, even Catholics, see such a spectrum of gray. My Catholic friend does not, and I respect him for the consistency of his position. Within his moral framework, human life – human personhood – begins at conception, and to destroy it for any reason is equivalent to committing murder. We have laws against murder in our society, and they trump our right to privacy. A woman enduring domestic abuse may wish to make the private decision to murder her abuser, but society says his right to life trumps her individual choice. If one believes, as my friend and many Christians do, that abortion is no different from murdering anyone already born, then there is a moral imperative to deny the legality of such a practice. To his credit, he is consistent on sanctity of life issues: unlike far too many religious conservatives, he doesn’t oppose abortion, then turn around and vote for a candidate who supports the war in Iraq or policies that keep kids in ghettoes well stocked with machine guns and assault rifles so they can keep killing each other (the same invalid slippery slope argument Obama makes applies most of the time to gun rights advocates, too).

I cannot make that same choice not to participate. As I see it, we humans are fallen and flawed and our institutions are, too. But they are the only structures we have within which to work toward our nobler goals of justice, fairness and the common good. There is a lot we can do outside of government. But government, whether a “necessary evil” or agent of our “better angels,” is a fixture in our collective welfare, and I believe we have a moral obligation to participate in it.

When it comes to resolving the social problems that prompt so many women to have abortions, I have faith that Democrats can do more to solve them than anything Republicans are proposing, despite their claim to be the pro-life party. As Kristen Day, head of Democrats for Life, said in an interview with the New Republic last month, “Republicans do nothing to help pregnant women who are facing pregnancy…Many women don’t have the resources to sustain a healthy pregnancy, let alone a child.” Data shows that Democratic policies such as those espoused in the Pregnant Women Support Act endorsed by Obama – providing prenatal resources, expanding health care – are effective in helping to reduce abortion rates.

It is one thing to speak out about against abortion, as Republicans do, but quite another to take action that makes meaningful inroads against its prevalence. Toward that utilitarian realization of an end, as Day said, “If a voter’s top priority is reducing abortion, she should vote Democratic.”

For many Catholics, abortion is that top-priority issue. For me, the whole gamut of issues that concern our quality of life as human beings, on earth, in community with one another, are just as central. Those are central concerns to many conservatives, too. As my staunchly Republican cousin claims whenever we talk politics, “We really want the same things in the end…we just disagree on the means to get there.” In many respects I think he’s right. But where I think he is wrong is in believing that yet more Republican policies will get us anywhere near our shared desire for a more humane society. My faith is buoyed, however, that we are talking, that I am talking with my Catholic friend, that we are being honest and respecting one another while cultivating conversation. The seeds of that elusive common ground we so desperately need in this country can only germinate in the soil of civility fertilized with integrity.

span.jajahWrapper { font-size:1em; color:#B11196; text-decoration:underline; } a.jajahLink { color:#; text-decoration:none; } span.jajahInLink:hover { background-color:#B11196; }

span.jajahWrapper { font-size:1em; color:#B11196; text-decoration:underline; } a.jajahLink { color:#; text-decoration:none; } span.jajahInLink:hover { background-color:#B11196; }

span.jajahWrapper { font-size:1em; color:#B11196; text-decoration:underline; } a.jajahLink { color:#; text-decoration:none; } span.jajahInLink:hover { background-color:#B11196; }

span.jajahWrapper { font-size:1em; color:#B11196; text-decoration:underline; } a.jajahLink { color:#; text-decoration:none; } span.jajahInLink:hover { background-color:#B11196; }

Yes, I know.

Whatever the private depths of American bigotry may be, one thing is clear. In publicly sanctioned discourse, a powerful black man is no longer anybody’s nigger, but a powerful woman is still every misogynist’s bitch.

Yes, I’m angry about that. No, I don’t plan to get over it, shut up about it or stop working to change it. It seems you’re even angrier than I am, because your rage has evidently destroyed any principles or intelligence you may once have had. Hillary Clinton tried to show you the big picture, but if it’s only about women’s issues for you, let this woman point out what your resentment vote for John McCain will buy you and me and all of our daughters and sisters and friends for the next eight years or so.

• Federal funding and required insurance coverage for family planning, contraception and preventive women’s health care will disintegrate.
• Supreme Court justices will be hand-picked to overturn Roe v. Wade.
• Tax dollars will continue to pour into abstinence-only sex education, which will continue not to work.
• Emergency contraception will be outlawed or made impossible to obtain.
• Fair pay for women? Ignored, if McCain’s past record is any indication. And it is.

John McCain belongs to a club that never has and never will want you as a member. Why the hell are you trying to join?

The Catholic League’s request to Leah Daughtry to ban the blogs BitchPhD and Towleroad from the Democratic National Convention came as something of a shock to those of us here at Scholars and Rogues. Frankly, Mr. Donohue, we are hurt. Our offices contain no balloon figures of Jesus, with or without genitalia (you say “apparently albino penis,” I say “loincloth” – oh wait! There’s the penis! Or should it be Penis?). Our site features no links to intensely homoerotic coverage of the hottest Olympic athletes, despite insistent lobbying from at least two of our staff members. Our humble blog, unlike Daily Kos, may never become the Internet apotheosis of evil radicalism. We know our place. We are what we are.

What we are, Mr. Donohue, is a blog at least ten times as offensive to the Catholic League as the so-called “patently obscene” publications to which you so vehemently object.

Had you bothered to do any in-depth research, were you the watchdog of God you claim to be, your list of blogs to be summarily uncredentialed would have been headed by the proud though lesser-known name of… Scholars and Rogues.

Perhaps it is not too late; in this hope, I offer you the following information about our staff, practices and standards. May you use it for the greater glory of the League, ignoring in your righteous wrath the craven tolerance and despicable humanity of the vast majority of Catholics worldwide.

1. If, as you quote Peter Viereck, “Catholic baiting is the anti-Semitism of the liberals,” editor-in-chief Dr. S has raised that pastime to an art by installing an actual Catholic baiting pit in the basement of S&R headquarters. Unlucky male representatives of the Faith are routinely chained to steam pipes and taunted for hours by voluptuous Wiccans bearing wine, condoms and the latest issue of Lesbian Vampire Nuns of Sodom. Oddly, many former victims later return voluntarily and must be chased away by special guilt-sniffing Rottweilers.
2. Dr. W, senior editor and sexuality expert, has divorced at least nine wives, four of whom are practicing Catholics. With a callous disregard for the traditions of their faith, Dr. W has refused to apply for annulments on the grounds of antecedent and perpetual impotence, thereby dooming these poor women to a lifetime of lesbian vampire sex behind convent walls.
3. Mr. W, editor, is an official lapsed Catholic and has been heard to loudly profane the name of the Holy Virgin while locked alone in his office for several hours at a time. Repetitive slapping noises and an impressive collection of leather flagellation devices may or may not be related to these obscene outbursts.
4. Ms. I, token female and possessor of the Moist Pink Gates to Hell, is an outspoken pro-choice advocate; like most of her fellow succubi she has used repeated casual abortions to facilitate her whorish lifestyle and prominently displays a series of commemorative post-D&C “thumbs-up” photos along one wall of her cubicle.
5. Ms. I also personally fucked Jesus at least twice, possibly three times if oral counts. She stated that although the Savior pronounced his name “hay-ZOOS,” she got a look at his driver’s license in the bar and is confident in her identification.
6. Mr. L, token homosexual or “quoken,” also claimed to have had carnal knowledge of that same Son of God. In the resulting bitchfight, Mr. L produced as evidence a semen-stained t-shirt bearing an eerie resemblance to the lower half of the Shroud of Turin. Challenged as to its authenticity, Mr. L casually dropped two words: Baby. Jesus. (NSFW) Ms. I ran from the room in tears, only to discover Hayzoos had given her a fake cell number.
7. Mr. O emphatically denies any unhealthy preoccupation with plaid skirts, knee socks or white cotton panties. He was, however, unable to explain to the S&R site administrator the near-constant traffic between his workstation and here; his excessive Kleenex and hand lotion consumption is also under investigation.
8. Finally, Mr. Donohue, virulent ad hominem attacks on the defenders of the Faith are an everyday occurrence at S&R, and you yourself are a favored target. A typically bigoted exchange:

Is it me or is he the pervy uncle who wants you to sit on his lap while he talks about the miracle of womanhood?

I don’t know, but he’s apparently obsessed with Jesus’s penis…

I would be, too.

Shut up, you smug bitch!

HEY, we’re ripping the Catholofascist right now, you two.

Whatever.

So what does he say about fucking choirboys?

Who, King Powerbottom Donohue?

Nothing. No comment. He’s like the Switzerland of the Catholic world.

Yeah, if by “Switzerland” you mean “hysterical misogynistic homophobic paranoiac.”

Just an affectionate nickname, bless his heart.

I can only hope, Mr. Donohue, that you will reconsider your choice of obscene and inappropriate blogs and add Scholars and Rogues to that roll of honor.

Thank you,

The Staff of S&R

Earlier this week, new information was published at the Colorado Independent by investigative reporter Wendy Norris that raises very serious questions about the individuals and organizations backing the non-profit that got the amendment on the ballot, Colorado for Equal Rights (CER). Specifically, it appears that some of CER’s backers have long associations with militant anti-abortion groups. And by militant, I mean groups that actively espouse murdering obstetricians who perform abortions.

The first part of the series, Colorado personhood law backer linked to militant anti-abortion groups, introduces us to Dr. James Patrick Johnston, D.O., the individual leading CER’s national outreach program. Norris interviewed Johnston and he admitted something that the CER and its supporters refuse to mention for fear that it will tarnish their public image – that the entire purpose of Amendment 48 is to “protect the unborn.” If Johnston stopped there, then we could write him off as an anti-abortionist. But Norris, by using Johnston’s own quotes taken from the websites and publications of militant anti-abortion groups the Army of God (supporters of clinic and Olympic bomber Eric Rudolph, among others) and Christian Gallery (original source of the infamous Nuremberg Files list of targeted abortion providers), shows how Johnston has defended the actions of Army of God founder Paul Hill, an anti-abortion Christian who murdered Dr. John Britton and his security escort, James Barrett.

Part two of the series, Fanning the radical anti-abortion flames in Colorado, ties Johnston even tighter to extreme anti-abortion groups in Colorado via his co-protests, speeches, and interviews with people associated with groups such as Operation Rescue, Colorado Right to Life, and others. But the CER doesn’t have to rely on Johnston alone – Norris points out that many of the CER’s staffers and financial donors are similarly connected to radical anti-abortion groups.

And we can’t forget that an early spokesman for CER suggested that Amendment 48 would necessarily result in a ban on oral contraceptives as well as an abortion ban – if the pill actually does prevent zygotes from implanting in the uterus, then the pill would probably qualify as a murder weapon under Amendment 48.

Interestingly, Johnston chose to reply to Norris’ story in the comments and claim that he never wrote many of the things that Norris’ investigations turned up. Unfortunately for Johnston, his protestations of innocence with regard to writing for the Army of God are refuted with proof provided via an archived version of the Army of God website. Johnston’s complaint about the Minutemen United, however, may be valid as I have been unable to find examples of the advocacy of violence by that group, and unlike the Army of God and Christian Gallery, Norris doesn’t provide links or descriptions to any examples. And Johnston’s own words, taken from the Army of God website itself, put the lie to his claim that he has “never written tracts or articles that defend the murder of reproductive health clinic staff” or that he condemned Paul Hill. However, it’s possible that Johnston has mellowed from his more impetuous youth when he was writing tracts for the Army of God and defending Paul Hill, but if so, lying about it when the proof is shown clearly by Norris’ investigations doesn’t exactly build much credibility.

It’s hardly a surprise that the more virulent anti-abortion groups would support Colorado for Equal Rights. After all, as Norris mentions in part two, there is a split between two camps in the anti-abortion movement – those who believe that incremental restrictions is the only way to be successful over the long run and those who believe that a full ban must happen immediately if not sooner, and by any means necessary. CER and radical anti-abortion groups like the Army of God and Colorado Right to Life are of the second camp, and so it’s only natural that they’d work together on Amendment 48.

However, the intimate connections between those who would justify murder in the name of God and Colorado’s zygote personhood amendment gives everyone reason to question the motives and ultimate goals of Colorado for Equal Rights, Amendment 48, and everyone associated with it.

Related Links

• Every sperm is sacred – open thread
• A person’s a zygote

The results looked like this:

• Pursue appropriate criminal sanctions. Religion is no defense for child endangerment. (75%, 101 Votes)
• Nothing. These kinds of cases fall under the absolute right to freedom of religion. (25%, 33 Votes)

The story referenced is here, and links to previous coverage of this sect can be found here.

I find the results of the poll (unscientific though it may be) fascinating. Specifically, I’m interested in the thinking of the 25% who believe that letting a child die of a curable condition is … well, okay. It’s okay because their understanding of the Constitution is that the worst form of child neglect and endangerment imaginable is acceptable so long as it’s executed in the name of a god.

Let’s be sure we get this part right. Say Bob lets his baby die because he’s sorry, hateful ignorant white trash. Mary lets her baby die because the Lord told her to. Bob goes to prison. Mary gets knocked up and has another baby (with the blessing of society).

Am I getting close here?

Based on assumptions drawn from a 40+ year acquaintance with the American public, let me further speculate that many of the people who are okay with what happened in Oregon probably believe it’s a horrific crime to abort a fetus. So, in this view, aborting a blastocyst – mortal sin. Letting an actual living, breathing human die – will of God.

What we have here is absorbing in and of itself, but the philosophy has larger implications that are even more important to understand. In essence, we’re being told that the call of religion supersedes the details of any crime. It’s an absolutist stance that doesn’t seem to allow for any shades of gray.

To make sure I’m not making things up or – God forbid – constructing a straw man, I’d like to ask the people who voted for the absolutist position tell me what’s wrong with these assertions:

• if your religion condones it, it’s okay to withhold medical care from an innocent, even if it results in unfathomable suffering and eventual death
• if your religion condones it, it should therefore be okay to kill a child for certain kinds of misbehavior
• if your religion condones it, it should be okay to kill another human being for violating the teachings of your church
• if your religion condones it, it should be okay to hijack an airliner and fly it into a large building, resulting the deaths of thousands of infidels
• if your religion condones it, it’s okay to stone your sister to death for looking at a man she isn’t married to
• if your religion condones it, it’s okay to use your position in the church to rape children entrusted to your care
• and how about this: if your religion condones it, it’s okay to have an abortion

In short, I’d like to know what, if anything, isn’t acceptable if you have the sanction of a religious body or official.

I personally cannot conceive that the framers of the Constitution intended any such hogwash. This noble document, which stands as perhaps the greatest political framework in history, wasn’t devised as a hiding place for the most ignorant among us, and it’s impossible to imagine that the list of our inalienable rights includes the right to deprive an innocent child of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

If it does, then we now have all the justification we’ll ever need for abolishing it as we would any other archaic, barbaric drivel.

So there it is – come tell me what I’m missing. But be forewarned – the positions as stated and as acted upon by this mouthbreathing cult in Oregon are philosophically absolute, so be careful about interpreting and drawing lines. That’s not a path that’s going to serve you very well, I don’t think.

As time passed and I grew more … educated … I became more and more conflicted. There were things about Republican philosophy that appealed to me: fiscal responsibility was one, and also a live-and-let-live approach to how people pursued their own lives. Social libertarianism, in other words. And while most now regard me as pretty darned progressive, the fact is that I remain committed to fiscal responsibility and am more socially libertarian than I ever was.

I recall the point where I realized that I couldn’t be a Republican anymore. In 1988 I was in Iowa, getting my MA in English at Iowa State. I went to my neighborhood GOP caucus and supported, quite vocally, a man who wasn’t even running: former Tennessee Senator and White House Chief of Staff Howard Baker, an old-style moderate who’d made his mark as – dare I even use the word? – a statesman. When it came time to vote, Baker scored three of us: me, this girl I was dating, and another guy I somehow won over through silver-tongued rhetoric.

The majority of the votes, of course, went to Jack Kemp and Pat Robertson. Doubt began to nip at the heels of my consciousness, as I took a good hard look at the drooling pack of evangelical mouthbreathers I was in bed with.

Something remarkable happened next: I got elected to be one of the precinct’s representatives to the county convention. How remains a mystery. Maybe everybody else was busy with animal husbandry chores that day. Not really sure. In any case, I showed up for the convention and within a couple votes had identified and hooked up with the rest of the moderate delegates. All four of them.

Here’s how the day proceeded, pretty much. Drooling evangelicals present a variety of plank proposals, 99% of which are alternately worded approaches to banning abortion. Me and the rest of the moderates debate intelligently and passionately while the social conservatives stared blankly – if you’ve ever watched a herd of cattle as they all watch you back, you have a pretty good idea of the level of the intellectual engagement in the room that day. Motion passes, next item. Oh, look – they moved the comma in this one.

Periodically one of us unwashed moderate types would offer an amendment. I’ll let you see if you can figure out how that went.

Throughout the day we didn’t talk about education. We didn’t talk about the real impact on working people that the Reagan/Bush/voodoo/supply side policies were having. We didn’t talk about … well, hell, we didn’t talk about much other than abortion. Ban abortion. Repeal Roe. Establish a litmus test for judicial appointments that they’ll work to overturn Roe. Ban funding for anybody that doesn’t condemn abortion. Lather, rinse, repeat. And there was precious little attempt to pretend that the rationale for banning it had anything to do with anything besides Jesus.

I voted for Bush I in that election, mainly out of disgust for Dukakis, but also out of some faint, desperate hope that Bush the President would more closely resemble the guy who cracked off “voodoo economics” on Reagan than he did Reagan’s bitch. Maybe he’s just been pandering to get elected, went the thinking, and once he does he’ll revert and be his own man again.

Yes, there are problems with my rationalizations. Lots of them. I didn’t know then what I know now. In any case, I don’t recall being much of a Republican after the 1988 Story County GOP Convention. Whatever I was or had been, whatever the party was or had been, it was now painfully clear that me and them didn’t agree on much, if anything, past “Dukakis looked like an idiot riding in that tank.”

The Jesus Problem

I grew up Southern Baptist. In the rural South. So I knew what I was looking at and dealing with when I started encountering the Robertson crowd. I had long since parted company with any Christian organization, and I was instinctively troubled by the Religious Right’s co-option of the GOP. I knew all I wanted or needed to know about conservative preachers and their whatever-preacher-says followers. Robertson. Swaggart. Bakker. Falwell. A legion of ambitious lesser lights. Something was going powerfully wrong, and while the evangelicals weren’t the whole problem, they were a big part of it.

Conservativism no longer seemed to have any room for live-and-let-live. This virulent new Crusader ethic didn’t trust people to act on their own relationships with God. If you prayed and God told you that having an abortion (or voting for a Democrat) was the right thing to do, then you hadn’t been listening to God at all. It seemed to me that Protestantism, which was built on that individual and personal relationship with the divine, had been hijacked by an institutional, political dynamic that pronounced a collective, organizational Truth that was every bit as Catholic in its thinking as the Inquisition.

If you took that whole separation-of-church-and-state thing literally, as I did, these new developments were even more troubling. The vast majority of people at the Story County Convention weren’t there to help select a president. They were bent on electing a Preacher-in-Chief, and their present-day analogues have only been emboldened by 20+ years of being taken way too damned seriously.

Some people are probably reading this and thinking that I hate Christians, which is pure silliness. My issue isn’t with honest Christians, whether I agree with them theologically or not. It’s with the theocratic agenda. I have no real concern with what a person believes. I’m equally fine with a person living in accordance with those beliefs so long as they lead him or her down a better path.

But when the decision is made to project those beliefs on the larger culture via political means, we’re no longer talking about religion. We’re talking about strongarm, despotic politics of the most arrogant sort imaginable. And there I draw a hard line.

For people like me, the last 25-30 years have been distressing. Which brings us to Election 2008.

John McCain and the Wide Right

The uneasy dance between Sen. McCain and the GOP’s social conservatives over the past few months has been a lot of fun to watch – kinda like seeing Larry Flynt and Phyllis Schlafly being forced at gunpoint into an arranged marriage. Put simply, they really don’t seem to much care for each other, but neither sees a viable alternative. A lot has been written about this tension of late, too. Have a look at the Google:

• the Times tells us this morning that “McCain Extends His Outreach, but Evangelicals Are Still Wary“;
• In the Post, Count Novakula examines “McCain’s Evangelical Problem“;
• UPI notes that “McCain [is] wooing conservatives in low-key way“; but
• a new conservative freakbat group isn’t having any, encouraging its people to write in Mickey Mouse instead.

And so on, and so on, and so on….

The Los Angeles Times takes a good hard look at how all this is playing out in Ohio, a key battleground state, and what they find is bad news for McCain.

As the architect of Ohio’s ballot measure against gay marriage, Phil Burress helped draw thousands of conservative voters to the polls in 2004, most of whom also cast ballots to reelect President Bush. So Burress was not surprised when two high-level staffers from John McCain’s campaign dropped by his office, asking for his help this fall.

What surprised Burress was how badly the meeting went. He says he tried but failed to make the McCain team understand how much work remained to overcome the skepticism of social conservatives. Burress ended up cutting off the campaign officials as they spoke. “He doesn’t want to associate with us,” Burress now says of McCain, “and we don’t want to associate with him.”

That meeting and other run-ins with conservatives, some Republicans say, have revealed the depth of the challenge facing McCain: mollifying Republican constituencies that have distrusted many of his policy positions, in order to build the machinery needed to push voters to the polls in November.

If McCain tried to gather his volunteers in Ohio, “you could meet in a phone booth,” said radio host Bill Cunningham, who attacks the Arizona senator regularly on his talk show. “There’s no sense in this part of Ohio that John McCain is a conservative or that his election would have a material benefit to conservatism.”

In some ways, though, the “Ohio disconnect” pales to another story bubbling up in the press – that McCain has refused to meet with Rev. Billy Graham.

Conservative news outlet Newsmax is reporting that its attempts to facilitate a meeting between John McCain and longtime pastor-to-the-presidents Billy Graham have been rebuffed by the McCain campaign.

Here is Newsmax writer Doug Wead:

In recent weeks I have been involved with Brian Jacobs, a Fort Worth, Texas, minister and consultant to the Billy Graham Association, to broker a meeting between McCain and Graham. In May, we contacted the McCain campaign with an offer to arrange such a meeting, as we had done between candidate George W. Bush and Graham during the 2000 election.

In response to their overtures, McCain’s director of scheduling sent Wead and Jacobs an emailing saying, “Senator McCain appreciates your invitation and the valuable opportunity it represents. Unfortunately, I must pass along our regrets and do not foresee an opportunity to add this event to the calendar.”

The hesitance on the part of the McCain campaign may be because of McCain’s past experiences with pastor’s this campaign season: he’s had to dump endorsements from John Hagee and Rod Parsley after controversial statements from both men made it politically impossible for McCain to stay associated with them. (Caveat: there may be no hesitance at all; Newsmax may have gotten this story wrong.)

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

As the story goes on to note:

Billy Graham isn’t Hagee or Parsley. He has had a relationship with every president since Eisenhower, Republicans and Democrats alike. He has been thoroughly and completely vetted; no one would blame McCain for meeting with him. The campaign’s reported decision to avoid Graham may be part of a novel strategy for a modern Republican presidential candidate, one that jettisons the Religious Right in favor of moderates.

Now, there’s some question about the validity of this story, as a Mother Jones update explains. In this version, McCain didn’t rebuff Graham, he blew off the two men who were trying to broker the meeting, which is a different thing entirely. This is plausible, especially given the statement of Graham’s representative.

But it’s also possible that we’re seeing nothing more in the response than damage control. If you’re inclined to believe this theory, you’d certainly take as evidence the fact that McCain has been the nominee for quite some time now, that during the entirety of his campaign he’s had a serious evangelical problem, and yet despite all this he still hasn’t reached out to the man who’s pretty much been the nonpartisan, noncontroversial gold standard of American evangelical Protestantism for decades.

A sit-down with Graham might not solve all McCain’s Jesus problems, but it damned sure wouldn’t hurt anything.

The Fracturing of the GOP?

All of this is potentially very good news, because anything that separates church from state is in the best interests of the Republic. The Wide Right doesn’t have a candidate they trust and respect (unless you count Mickey Mouse) and the only candidate they have is, at best, pursuing their support with something less than his entire heart and soul. I suppose this gives us a number of scenarios to contemplate, but let’s look at a couple of the more obvious ones.

First, say the evangelicals sit things out in November and McCain loses. Good news, because now they’re in no place to influence to the conduct of government for at least a couple years. These could be very important years as Obama does things like appoint judges who have read the Constitution.

Second – say they sit things out and McCain wins anyway. While McCain winning would be a Very Bad Thing^® in most every way, what would be the lasting impact on the American political scene if it became clear that you don’t need the Unwashed Trailer Park Bible Thumping Legion in order to win? Hmmm…

Interesting question, that, and if you could permanently extract from the political process those who do not believe in the Constitution it might almost be worth enduring four years of a faux maverick presidency. Operative words there: “if” and “almost.”

In any case, the unholy bedfellowship of Trailer Park and Country Club has been horrible for the country, and if McCain can be the crowbar that pries them apart, even if only temporarily, we will owe him a debt. This doesn’t mean we should vote for him or love him or believe a word of his hypocritical bullshit, of course, but we’ll take our victories however we can get them.

And a revised Republican Party that’s marginally more focused on our nation’s real problems would hopefully be better for us all in the long run. It would potentially make the Democrats stronger, smarter and more responsive and the new GOP would perhaps be a little less dangerous than it has been.

Some of the country’s better ideas historically have either come from Republicans or been helped along by the party. Getting back to those days wouldn’t be the worst thing imaginable, would it?

Long story short, an Idaho strawberry farmer has pared his legal name all the way down to ‘Pro-Life,’ that being the only way for him to appear specifically as Pro-Life on the upcoming ballot to succeed Senator Larry Craig (and every subsequent Idaho ballot until he meets Janis Joplin).

Considering he advocates murder charges for those who seek and perform abortions, he could have gone the Prince route and changed his name to an ultrasound picture. (Or one of those other ones… you know… *full-body shiver* from the protests. How would the DMV handle that?)

Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee on Monday endorsed a proposed Colorado Human Life Amendment that would define personhood as a fertilized egg.

Of course, Preacher Huck hasn’t stopped to ponder all the practical and logistical nightmares this kind of silliness would engender. For instance:

• If my wife is pregnant, can I claim Unborn, Jr. as a tax exemption?
• Does this make the legal drinking age 20 years, 3 months?
• Can kids get their driver’s licenses 15 years and 3 months after exiting the womb?
• If a kid if 17 years and 3 months old by traditional reckoning come November, we have to let him vote, right?
• Can a pregnant woman drive in the HOV lane?
• Ooh – this has implications for when you can be tried as an adult, doesn’t it?
• Would pregnant women have to pay for an extra ticket when they go to amusement parks?
• Could a pregnant woman be arrested for sneaking an underaged person into an NC-17 rated movie?

Your turn.

Thanks to KagroX and Oliver Griswold for a couple of the better ideas above…

It’s good that everybody knows that the people involved in the pro-life movement are directly responsible for the decline in abortions.

— Wanda Franz, president of the National Right to Life Committee, on a report that the abortion rate nationally has fallen 25 percent from 1990 to 2005.

Yes, we won 35 years ago — but women have been losing ground, losing rights, losing options, losing access, losing availability and just plain losing nearly every day since.

— Nancy Keenan, head of NARAL Pro-Choice America, in a recent speech.

Q: Does it not worry you that the legacy of this administration is going to be hundreds of billions of dollars of extra debt?
MS. PERINO: I think we’re still on track to get a balanced budget by 2012.

— exchange between reporter and press secretary Dana Perino at a Jan. 23 White House press briefing.

I have asked people from the business world, the faith world, the non-profit world, to join this council in order to come up with recommendations as to how to better educate people from all walks of life about matters pertaining to their finances and their future. … You know, it’s interesting that if we want America to be as hopeful a place as it can be, we want people owning assets. We want people investing. We want people owning homes. But oftentimes, to be able to do so requires literacy when it comes to financial matters. And sometimes people just simply don’t know what they’re looking at and reading.

— President Bush, announcing formation of the President’s Advisory Council on Financial Literacy; Jan. 22.

Q: Does what you call the “do-nothing Congress of 2007″ — do they share some of the blame for the fact that we are facing this [economic] slowdown?
MS. PERINO: I’m not blaming anyone. But what I am saying is anyone who is suggesting that this President should have done more on housing should not be saying that if it is, in fact, the Congress who hasn’t acted at all. That’s my point. I’m not blaming this on anybody.

— exchange between reporter and press secretary Dana Perino at a Jan. 23 press briefing.

The economy is working these things out. We’ve got the housing crisis and the subprime, and all these things take a while to settle. The government just doesn’t have the discipline to kind of let things work out.

— David R. Henderson, a libertarian economist at the Hoover Institution at Stanford, on the Bush administration’s plan to revitalize the economy; Jan. 24; emphasis added.

You also have a housing crunch as housing prices are dropping for the first time in living memory. And what that means is a lot of people, who are counting on their houses, as both their cash cow and also their — their retirement nest egg, can no longer count on them. So, a lot of consumers are getting very concerned, very worried. Job figures are not very good. So all of this has the makings of a fairly severe recession. Let’s hope not. But what Ben Bernanke did and what Congress is about to do with the stimulus package are really small potatoes relative to the size of the potential problem.

— Robert Reich, former Labor secretary in the Clinton administration, in a Jan. 24 CNN interview; emphasis added.

This is a victory for the truth, and a victory for all South Carolinians who want to turn the page on the divisive politics of the past. Obviously the deceptions go beyond this one radio ad. It’s time for the distortions of Senator Obama’s record to stop.

— Obama supporter and former Clinton administration official David Agnew after the Clinton campaign pulled a controversial ad critical of presidential candidate Barack Obama one day after it launched.

We are trafficking in our final closing messages for the campaign and that explains the change in traffic.

— Howard Wolfson, top strategist of the Clinton campaign, explaining that pulling an ad critical of Sen. Obama one day after it was launched was just part of the normal rotation of ads.

We need a president who will run the government and manage the economy. The American people don’t hire a president to talk about our problems, but to solve them.

— Sen. Hillary Clinton, criticizing the President Bush’s economic stimulus plan in a Jan. 24 speech at Furman University.

I want to go to the Senate to fight for the men and women who work in this plant and the other good people I have been meeting with throughout western New York. I want to be a strong advocate for the manufacturing sector, for small business, and I have a plan with specific ideas about how to do that.

— Senate candidate Hillary Clinton in an October 2000 visit to a Bethlehem steel plant in Buffalo that had seen 22,000 jobs dwindle to 850. Her economic plan for upstate New York promised to yield 200,000 upstate New York jobs over six years, which critics argue has not happened.

We’re not backing up all events in puberty. We’re backing up the starting point. … Over the course of a few decades, the childhoods of U.S. girls have been significantly shortened.

— Sandra Streingraber, biologist and visiting scholar at Ithaca College, on her research that shows the age of onset of puberty in girls to be falling.

These people have just had it. A lot of them are being really mean about it, and I don’t blame them.

— Mike Lanz, Franke’s director of sales for Franke Coffee Systems North America in Seattle, about the 247 coffee lovers on a waiting list for the La Marzocco GS/3 home-use expresso machine who had expected to pay $4,500; they just found out it would cost $7,500.

The kids are very enthusiastic. You know, in our community, you have to be really creative to get some students interested.

— Mike Robinson, the principal of Creekside High School in Fairburn in Georgia, whose school is “offering students who are weak in math and science eight dollars an hour to go to study hall and review their pet peeve subjects” and will pay them another $125 is they get B’s in those courses.

Quotabull is a weekly feature of Scholars & Rogues.

Three decades later, there is a legitimate debate about how we got into the Vietnam War and how we left. Whatever your position in that debate, one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America’s withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like ‘boat people,’ ‘re-education camps,’ and ‘killing fields.’

— President Bush in Aug. 22 speech at the Veterans of Foreign Wars National Convention in Kansas City.

The only relevant analogy of Vietnam to Iraq is this: In Iraq, just as we did in Vietnam, we are clinging to a central government that does not and will not enjoy the support of the people. Unless the president acts on that lesson from history and works toward a federal solution in Iraq, there is no prospect that when we leave, we will leave anything stable behind. In fact, the president’s policies are pushing us toward another Saigon moment — with helicopters fleeing the roof of our embassy — which he says he wants to avoid. Al Qaeda in Iraq didn’t exist before we invaded. It is a Bush fulfilling prophecy.

— Presidential candidate Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, criticizing the president’s speech, saying the president “continues to play the American people for fools.”

It just boggles my mind, the distortions I feel are perpetrated here by the president. We were in Vietnam for 10 years. We dropped more bombs on Vietnam than we did in all of World War II in every theater. We lost 58,700 American lives, the second-greatest loss of lives in a foreign conflict. And we couldn’t work our will. What is Bush suggesting? That we didn’t fight hard enough, stay long enough? That’s nonsense. It’s a distortion. We’ve been in Iraq longer than we fought in World War II. It’s a disaster, and this is a political attempt to lay the blame for the disaster on his opponents. But the disaster is the consequence of going in, not getting out.

— Historian Robert Dallek, commenting on the president’s speech.

We assess, to the extent that Coalition forces continue to conduct robust counterinsurgency operations and mentor and support the Iraqi Security Forces, that Iraq’s security will continue to improve modestly during the next 6 – 12 months, but that levels of insurgent and sectarian violence will remain high and the Iraqi Government will continue to struggle to achieve national-level political reconciliation and improved governance.

— excerpt from the National Intelligence Estimate, the consensus judgment of the CIA and 15 other U.S. intelligence agencies, released Aug. 23.

[T]he President reiterated our willingness to help Mexico should Mexico need assistance — and again, clearly responding to what the Mexicans see as their needs. We want to be in a position to help them as appropriate and as best we can should [Hurricane] Dean hit any part of Mexico.

— Dan Fisk, senior director for Western Hemisphere Affairs, National Security Council, during an Aug. 22 press briefing on President Bush’s bilateral meetings with Mexico and Canada.

[T]his is the Law and Order and Terror government. It promised protection — or at least amelioration — against all threats: conventional, radiological, or biological. It has just proved that it cannot save its citizens from a biological weapon called standing water.

— MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann on Sept. 5, 2005, one week after Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans.

The New Orleans Index, a look at several indicators that show how the city and region are rebounding from the 2005 disaster, shows the city has regained 66% of its pre-Katrina population as of June 2007. … “Crime remains unacceptably high in the city, eliciting real and legitimate concerns from residents and business owners,” the report states. Essential criminal justice buildings, including police stations, still are in need of repair. Two police stations and police headquarters continue to operate from trailers supplied by FEMA. … Returning basic services to parts of the city, including schools, child care and city buses, has been slow because of the process involved in obtaining federal funds from the Federal Emergency Management Agency … Only 45% of the city’s schools are open, according to the report compiled by the Washington-based Brookings Institution and the Greater New Orleans Community Data Center, a non-profit group. Of the 128 public schools in Orleans Parish, 58 have reopened as of May. Another 25 schools are scheduled to reopen by fall, but many essential repairs to those schools have not been completed.

— from an Aug. 12, 2007, USAToday story about a report on the status of New Orleans compiled by the Brookings Institution and the Greater New Orleans Community Data Center, a non-profit group.

I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country.

— former Massachusetts governor and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney during his 1994 bid to unseat Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy.

I respect and will protect a woman’s right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government’s. The truth is, no candidate in the governor’s race in either party would deny women abortion rights. So let’s end this argument that does not exist and stop the cynical, divisive attacks made only for political gain.

— Presidential candidate Mitt Romney in answer to a NARAL Pro-Choice America questionnaire during his 2002 campaign for Massachusetts governor.

I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.

— excerpt from Boston Globe commentary written in 2005 by former Massachusetts governor and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

And it struck me very powerfully at that point, that the Roe v. Wade approach has so cheapened the value of human life that someone could think it’s not a moral issue to destroy embryos that have been created solely for the purpose of research, and I said to my chief of staff, and that’s been 2 1/2 years ago, I said to her, ‘I want to make it very clear that I’m pro-life.’

— Presidential candidate Mitt Romney on Feb. 7, 2007, noting that “his moment of illumination about the immorality of abortion came two years ago during a meeting with an embryonic stem cell researcher.”

I do support the Republican platform, and I do support that being part of the Republican platform, and I’m pro-life.

— Presidential candidate Mitt Romney in an Aug. 7 interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos in which Romney said he’d support a constitutional amendment to protect the unborn.

We must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the 14th Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life. … We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion.

— excerpt from the 2004 Republican Party platform. [emphasis added]

My view is that the Supreme Court has made an error in saying at the national level one size fits all for the whole nation. Instead, I would let states make their choices. … I’d let states make their own decision in this regard. My view, of course, is I’m a pro-life individual. That’s the position I support. But, I’d let states have this choice rather than let the federal government have it.

— Presidential candidate Mitt Romney in an Aug. 21 televised interview with Nevada political columnist Jon Ralston.

Sanctuary cities become magnets that encourage illegal immigration and undermine secure borders. Legal immigration is great. But illegal immigration, that we’ve got to end. And amnesty is not the way to do it.

— Text of a new radio ad broadcast Aug. 21 in Iowa and New Hampshire for presidential candidate Mitt Romney, highlighting his “effort to use the Massachusetts state police to enforce immigration laws while he served as governor,” which prompted opponents to point out that Massachusetts had three “sanctuary cities” while he served as governor.

We are supposed to be the party of the people. John, he’s not taking any lobbyist money, not just now, but for the rest of the campaign.

— Elizabeth Edwards speaking on Aug. 19 at the Story County Democrats’ Big Band Swing Fling in Nevada, Iowa, about the fundraising practices of her husband, presidential candidate John Edwards, whose campaign has accepted $13,500 from lobbyists compared with Sen. Hillary Clinton, who leads all presidential candidates with $406,300 from lobbyists, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Edwards has accepted $6,545,542 from lawyers and law firms, more than any other presidential candidate.

Quotabull is a weekly Thursday feature of Scholars & Rogues.

[C]learly this was not something that we expected to happen, given the history of this bridge, the inspection process, and how this bridge was rated.

— Mary Peters, secretary of Transportation, during an Aug. 4 White House press briefing about the collapsed Minnesota I-35W bridge that “[s]tate bridge inspectors [had] warned for nearly a decade before its collapse that the Interstate 35W bridge had ’severe’ and ‘extensive’ corrosion of its beams and trusses, ‘widespread cracking’ in spans and missing or broken bolts … [with] certain components were ‘beyond tolerable limits’ … ”

This record is not tainted at all, at all. Period. You guys can say whatever you want.

— San Francisco Giants right fielder Barry Bonds at a press conference after breaking Hank Aaron’s career home-run record of 755 home runs Tuesday night.

Tonight, Barry Bonds etched his name into baseball’s history books and took his rightful place among the sport’s immortals. … As a season ticket holder, I am particularly glad it happened on the Giants’ Italian night.

— excerpt from statement by Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House, who represents the Eight Congressional District in California, which includes San Francisco.

Absolutely, absolutely. I’m a big Hank Aaron fan. He did it the right way — he earned it.

— House Minority Leader John Boehner, a Republican, asked if he would put an asterisk after Barry Bond’s record 756 home runs.

Nowadays, around baseball, when you say ‘Henry,’ that’s enough. There’s only one of him in this game. And that’s enough, too, for my dough. I mean, why be greedy? Beethovens don’t come by the dozen. Baseball is not the philharmonic, but it is like it in that when you get someone who doesn’t need the music right in front of him, people pay to see him. As for you Willie Mays fans — Liberace, baby. My man is not the sequined-suit type. No vulgar flash. Just hits the right notes. And the high curveballs.

— Closing paragraph of an Oct. 3, 1963, column on Hank Aaron by the late Jim Murray, Pulitzer-winning sports columnist for the Los Angeles Times.

We have a very different expectation of our heroes than we used to. They have to somehow tickle us in the short term, as well as provide sustenance for the long. They have to be clever. They have to do things on the field that amuse. It’s not enough to hit 756 home runs. We need to be entertained.

— sports historian John Thorn.

I dreamed about this as a kid. Unfortunately, when I dreamed about it, I was the one hitting the homer.

— Washington National Mike Bacsik who threw the two-out, 3-2 fastball that Barry Bonds hit over the fence in right center field in the fifth inning for his 756th home run.

Our Nation is grateful for the bold leadership of American women who have opened doors of opportunity for women of future generations. On Women’s Equality Day we honor the suffragists and all those who seek to expand equality in our world.

— from an Aug. 6 proclamation designating Aug. 26 as Women’s Equality Day by President Bush, whose administration sought last year to eliminate the Equal Opportunity Survey, begun by President Clinton to compel “companies to disclose data … on affirmative action performance and pay by gender and race.”

This is a shadowy enemy, unbound by morality or the rules of war, operating in stealth, and setting up networks within networks.

— from an Aug. 6 address to the 84th national convention of the Marine Corps League by Vice President Dick Cheney, who was presumably speaking about terrorists and not the Bush administration.

The Administration’s mid-year budget update showed that we’re making good progress in driving down the deficit to half of what it was three years ago – and just 1.5 percent of our total economy. The Federal budget deficit is now estimated to fall to $205 billion in 2007, a reduction of $43 billion or 18 percent from last year.

Pro-growth economic policies, including tax relief, has been good for American taxpayers and the American economy, allowing small businesses, entrepreneurs and American workers to save more of their hard-earned money. And, this has helped fuel our economic growth, resulting in higher than expected tax receipts and driving down the federal deficit. We are on a path to achieving the President’s goal of a balanced budget by 2012, with a $33 billion surplus.

— Steve McMillin, deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, in a July 19 “Ask The White House” online chat.

President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year’s record surplus of $122.7 billion.

— From a Sept. 27, 2000, CNN story, quoting President Clinton as saying this was “the largest one-year debt reduction in the history of the United States.”

Since we began cutting taxes in 2001, our economy has expanded by more than $1.9 trillion.

— from an Aug. 9 press conference by President Bush, under whose administration the national debt has risen from $5.95 trillion in 2001 to approximately $11 trillion in 2007.

Put another way, it’s about $1,300 in higher spending every second of every minute of every hour of every day of every year for the next five years. Now, somebody is going to have to pay for it. And that, of course, will be the hardworking American people. . . . I will use the veto to keep your taxes low and to keep federal spending under control.

— excerpt from Aug. 8 press conference remarks by President Bush as he “accused Democrats of plotting the largest tax increase in history to fund an additional $205 billion in discretionary spending over five years.”

New York is the safest large city in America since Mayor Giuliani turned it around — it is not a haven for illegality of any kind. The mayor’s record speaks for itself.

— Katie Levinson, communications director for Rudy Giuliani’s presidential campaign, responding to a charge by fellow GOP candidate Mitt Romney that Mr. Giuliani supported illegal immigration while he was mayor of New York City.

I’ll challenge myself and each member of Congress to wake up each morning and ask ourselves: will we remember today as the finest day of our public life; the day we worked just for you, not for us?

— excerpt from the presidential candidacy announcement of Sen. John McCain, who has missed 149 of 310 Senate votes, or 48 percent, in the 110th Congress.

There is no more fundamental American right than the right to vote.

— from the presidential campaign Web site of Sen. Barack Obama, who has missed 59 of 310 Senate votes, or 19 percent, in the 110th Congress.

We live in times of great uncertainty when men of faith must stand up for our values and our traditions lest they be washed away in a sea of fear and relativism. As you likely know, I am running for President of the United States, and I am asking for your support. … I have worked tirelessly to defend and restore those rights for all Americans, born and unborn alike. The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideal of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.

— excerpt from July 21 “Statement of Faith” by Rep. Ron Paul, who voted Aug. 1 against a bill that would have added 6 million lower-income children to a federal health-insurance program. The bill, an extension of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, passed the House, 225-204.

Victoria Beckham tries the hardest of the WAGs, and you have to give her credit for staying slim for so long. They set a bad example that women are just there to look beautiful. But I do like to flick through magazines and have a look at what they are wearing.

— Oliya Kalashnikova, 22, a student in London commenting on the Brits’ love of WAGs — wives and girlfriends — of “footballers.”

Texas achieved this title in 2003 and it seems nothing really changed in 2004. More concerning, Texas surpasses the national average of 41 births per 1,000 teens by nearly 20 points. According to the National Vital Statistics Reports, in 2003 the number of teen births in Texas was 51,091.

Even though Texas has seen a decline in the number of teen births, apparently this was not enough to lower our ranking. One reason, according to Frances Deviney of the Center for Public Policy Priorities, is that Texas has a high rate of Hispanics (35 percent of Texas population) and they tend to produce more teen mothers than other groups. What exactly did she mean by this statement? Unfortunately, we cannot blame the media for misquoting her; it is a statement she also made in the press release. The reason this concerns me is that it’s easy to assume that the reason teen pregnancy is high among young Latinas is because they are hyper-sexualized, a stereotype that continues to plague Latinas (voluptuous, sexy, morena, vixen, exotic, and sensual, etc.) – in other words, they’re hot mamacitas with insatiable appetites for sex.

The problem with stereotypes is that they force people to live out their lives in accordance with these extremely pervasive roles. Statements such as these seep into the collective public subconscious, causing us to believe that Latinas do have large sexual appetites and that they’re ready to hop into bed at the sight of a man. However, the facts do not support myths. According to a study published by the National Center for Health Statistics, it was found that Latinas 15-17 years of age are less likely to have sex than their non-Hispanic black or white counterparts.

The same is true for 18-19 year olds. In the first age group 30% of non-Hispanic white girls, 41% of non-Hispanic black girls, and 25% of Hispanic girls report having had sexual intercourse with a male. In the second age group 68% of non-Hispanic white girls, 77% of non-Hispanic black girls, and 59% of Hispanic girls report having done so (p. 24). And, of those girls who had had sex in the previous four weeks, 19% of non-Hispanic white girls had had sex 4 or more times in that period compared with 13% for both black girls and Hispanic girls.

While teen pregnancy and birth rates have declined in the Latina/o community, the reality remains that one in two Latina teens (51%) are still getting pregnant at least once before they reach the age of 20, according to the National Campaign Latino Initiative. That is nearly twice the national average. Why is there such a high pregnancy and birth rate when there’s less sexual activity? The reasons behind why young Latina/o teens get pregnant are both complicated and numerous. One thing is for sure, the old methods of advising a young female adolescent to “put a penny between your knees and keep it their” is useless advice and so is “sexual silence.”

It is important to recognize that teen pregnancy is both a cause and consequence of poverty. That is, high rates of teen pregnancy and childbearing reflect in part the existing disadvantage and limited opportunities for many in the Latina/o community. It is important to understand that many Latina/o youth are at high risk for teen pregnancy due to the same factors as other minority youth, such as socioeconomic status and educational attainment. However, it is also vitally important to understand that there are other risk factors that contribute. These factors tend to be related to cultural issues, such as acculturation, family values, attitudes about motherhood, religion, and traditional gender roles. It is easy to tick off stats on the dangers of teen pregnancy, and for some it does make a difference, but not enough to solve the problem. To get to heart of the matter, we must have a firm understanding how these cultural risk factors play a role because it is these factors that influence the level of knowledge or lack of knowledge one possesses about sex and contraceptives.

If we really are serious about curbing teen pregnancy, it definitely will not be done through Bush’s “Abstinence-Only” Program. Even though the Latino heritage is a rich and diverse, it is not monolithic. The Latino culture in the US varies not only by country of origin, but by regions and ethnicities within those countries. Yet, there are some common values among these various cultural. Some of these core values can be used to great effect when designing or implementing prevention programs in Latino communities.

One must also keep in mind there is no such thing as a generic Latina/o youth. There are varying levels of Spanish language usage, different cultural traditions and values, and an urban Tejana/o will have a different set of values from a Tejana/o from the Valle or from California and so on. There are also different levels of perceived discrimination, degrees of political organization, and social and economic dislocation among Latino subgroups.

And finally, using a “one size fits all approach” is not the solution. This approach tends to stereotype community members and their needs, and in the end it wastes valuable resources by designing inappropriate prevention efforts and inadvertently neglects of the needs of specific groups in the community.