Tag Archives: abortion

Worst Quote of the Week – August 16, 2019

“What if we went back through all the family trees and just pulled those people out that were products of rape and incest?  Would there be any population of the world left if we did that?  Considering all the wars and all the rapes and pillages taken place and whatever happened to culture after society?  I know I can’t certify that I’m not a part of a product of that.”

U.S. Congressman Steve King at the Westside Conservative Club in Urbandale, Iowa, on August 14; defending his position of not allowing exceptions for rape and incest in anti-abortion legislation he tried to pass in Congress.

This is what happens when people attend a family reunion to meet their ideal mate.

Leave a comment

Filed under News

The Original Antonin Scalia

antoninscalia4b

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died in his room at the Cibolo Creek Ranch, a luxury resort in the Big Bend region of West Texas last weekend. The ranch is in such an isolated locale that it took hours for local officials to find a justice of the peace to make an official ruling on Scalia’s death. Finally, Presidio County Judge Cinderela Guevara arrived on the scene and made the declaration without viewing Scalia’s body and without ordering an autopsy, both of which are permissible under Texas law.

Scalia is the 35th U.S. Supreme Court justice to die while still in office, and the fourth to die during a presidential election year. An icon to social and religious conservatives here in the U.S., Scalia was one of the most colorful characters to occupy the nation’s highest judicial bench. He was as brilliant as he was combative. His quirky sense of humor and brutal honesty illuminated the halls of what had always been considered a stodgy realm.

I recall, during the debate over the 2000 presidential elections, attorney Joseph Klock – arguing on behalf of the state of Florida – embarrassed himself by confusing some of the Supreme Court justice’s names. “For the record,” Scalia told Klock, before questioning him, “I’m Justice Scalia.”

I have to respect Scalia for his knowledge of the law and his willingness to take a stand for his own principles. People who rise to that level within the judiciary maze aren’t the same ones who handle traffic tickets. They are, instead, the most genuine of intellects; the folks who interpret the law when others can’t reach a mutual understanding. They are extraordinarily cerebral and steadfast in their beliefs; incredibly insightful and charming; and – in some cases – dangerous.

Aside from his wit and biting criticisms, Scalia is known for the concept of “originalism” or “textualism” regarding his view of the U.S. Constitution. He openly scoffed at the idea it was a malleable text; instead calling it a “dead document,” as if it had been dipped in amber – like a prehistoric butterfly – and encapsulated in its own perfection. It was not subject to interpretation from its authors’ descendants; lest its structural integrity be cracked and subsequently destroyed.

But, if the U.S. Constitution is a “dead document,” is it still relevant? Purposeful? Necessary? More importantly, if it’s dead, why has it been amended 27 times? I view the Constitution as either a dictionary, in that words are periodically added to it; or as a standard operating procedures manual (SOP), in that procedures are changed in accordance with technological advances. The term “Internet,” for example, didn’t exist a half-century ago, so a Merriam-Webster dictionary published in 1966 wouldn’t feature that word. Similarly, a SOP composed in 1966 for a bank wouldn’t describe the process of scanning paper documents into digital images because such a procedure hadn’t been devised yet. Someone somewhere may have thought of it, but that person was probably a nerdy type ensconced in a basement or a garage.

Aside from painting and writing, there were no audio or visual recording devices when the Constitution was written. Although the concept of photography was devised as early as the 11th century C.E., the first practical photograph was roughly a half-century and an ocean away from being taken by the time of the U.S. Revolution. The first sound recording was almost one hundred years in the future. Therefore, it’s difficult to infer what the Constitution’s framers meant exactly with their verbiage.

As devout Roman Catholics, Scalia and his wife, Maureen, didn’t believe in birth control and had nine children. One of them, Paul, decided to “take one for the team” – in his father’s words – and join the priesthood; thus becoming a conduit to one of the most violent and oppressive institutions on Earth. Like its conspirators, Judaism and Islam, Roman Catholicism (actually, all of Christianity) declared itself the model for humanity centuries ago and set out to conquer and annihilate people it deems heathens. Thus, it commands people to procreate (pollute) the world with their bodies and their toxic ideologies. Every time I think of that “go forth and multiply” biblical shit I think of the late Mother Teresa; the Romanian nun who infiltrated the starving masses of India and announced that she would care for any bitter soul and broken body who came her way; never realizing that the best way to prevent such misery is…oh, maybe teach women to be empowered by keeping their legs crossed, or telling men every erection doesn’t need to produce a child who ultimately can’t be fed and clothed.

Scalia often tried to force his ardent religiosity onto others; his personal beliefs rearing its ugly head in one of the most cumbersome issues of our time: abortion. In eight different opinions, he noted the U.S. Constitution doesn’t mention the term “abortion” and therefore, women had no right to it under constitutional concepts.

“You want a right to abortion?” he asked. “There’s nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn’t mean you cannot prohibit it.” His reference was that abortion laws should be left strictly up to individual states. He dubbed the legendary Roe v. Wade case an “absurdity,” adding that the Constitution’s 14th Amendment doesn’t guarantee equal protection for women when it comes to the subject of abortion. That’s congruent with the Christian biblical commandment of “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife,” which – if you read the entire passage – actually begins with “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house,” and everything in it; including said neighbor’s “manservant,” “ox” and “ass.” The Christian Bible, along with the Judaic Torah and the Islamic Quran, considers anyone with a vagina (and many with penises) property – akin to houses and donkeys. The U.S. Supreme Court itself was purportedly designed with Christian theology in mind.

Scalia possessed equal animosity towards homosexuality. In another landmark ruling, Lawrence v. Texas, denigrated the right to sexual relations between consenting adults of the same gender by comparing it to…flagpole-sitting.

“[S]uppose all the States had laws against flagpole sitting at one time, you know, there was a time when it was a popular thing and probably annoyed a lot of communities, and then almost all of them repealed those laws,” Scalia asked the attorney fighting the Texas law. “Does that make flagpole sitting a fundamental right?” His hate for gays and lesbians was so intense that he did something Supreme Court justices rarely do when they write their opinion: he stood and read it himself in the Lawrence case.

He also used the tired old right-wing mantra of comparing homosexuality to murder in Romer v Evans. “Of course it is our moral heritage that one should not hate any human being or class of human beings,” he wrote. “But I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible – murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals – and could exhibit even ‘animus’ toward such conduct. Surely that is the only sort of ‘animus’ at issue here: moral disapproval of homosexual conduct[.]”

But, despite his brilliance, Scalia proved how underhanded he could be in 2004, when he handled a case involving his old college buddy, then-Vice President Dick Cheney. In 2003, Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club sued Cheney for access to information regarding his clandestine energy task force meeting in 2001. A Washington, D.C., district judge ruled that the two groups had the right to know who was present at the meeting, in accordance with the 1972 Federal Advisory Committee Act. Cheney rebuffed the demand and took it to the Supreme Court; whereupon the matter ended up on Scalia’s docket. Shortly before that, however, Scalia and Cheney went on a duck hunting trip together in Kansas, with the jurist riding in the Vice-President’s plane. Such a close relationship smacked of impropriety and bias, but that certainly bothered neither Cheney nor Scalia.

“It did not involve a lawsuit against Dick Cheney as a private individual,” Scalia said. “This was a government issue. It’s acceptable practice to socialize with executive branch officials when there are not personal claims against them. That’s all I’m going to say for now. Quack, quack.” Yes, he really did say that, “Quack, quack,” which is essentially giving the middle finger to the concept of impartiality and judicial integrity.

Scalia’s innate bigotry glowed again in his opinion regarding a recent affirmative action case, Fisher v. University of Texas-Austin. Referencing some obscure amicus brief, Scalia said that “it does not benefit African-Americans to – to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a less – a slower-track school where they do well.” He argued that “most of the black scientists in this country don’t come from schools like the University of Texas.” Talking like a psychic-medium, he declared, “They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they’re – that they’re being pushed ahead in – in classes that are too – too fast for them.”

Translation: niggers are too stupid to go to big-time universities. He might as well have said the same about Hispanics and Native Americans. It’s amazing, though, in the 21st century that some people still possess such idiotic views. But, then again, the Word War II generation and those who did everything they could to halt the advance of civil rights haven’t all died out yet. They lost one of their own in Scalia. Good riddance.

Scalia made history as the first Italian-American on the U.S. Supreme Court. Several years ago I read an editorial about jury selection in 1950s-era Dallas County, Texas, which bore this statement from then-Assistant District Attorney Bill Alexander: “Do not take Jews, Negroes, Dagos, Mexicans or a member of any minority race on a jury, no matter how rich or how well educated. I may like these people, but they will not do on juries.” The term ‘dago’ refers to Italians.

I find it ironic that Scalia lied in state on the same day as author Harper Lee died. Lee’s “To Kill a Mockingbird” remains a classic of American literature; a book that dealt brazenly and unapologetically with the subject of racial injustice. Regardless of what one thinks of him, Antonin Scalia carved a deep impact into the consciousness of American society.

2 Comments

Filed under Essays

Life Managing

The Muñoz family in happier times.

The Muñoz family in happier times.

In June of 1997, the Southern Baptist Convention held its annual conference in Dallas, Texas.  Aside from preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ and proselytizing against the evil Bill Clinton, the organization had one other item on its agenda: boycott the Walt Disney Company because of its new policy to offer benefits to the same-sex partners of its some of its employees

The day after convention-goers officially voted on the Disney boycott, the “Dallas Morning News” placed the story on its front page – complete with a color photograph of the assemblage holding up placards; their smug, arrogant expression displaying their true contempt for the company.

In the fall of 1995, Disney had joined a growing number of companies that took the bold step of instituting non-discrimination policies for its gay and lesbian associates.  That included offering identical benefits to the same-gender partners of these employees.  Because Disney catered so much to families, the move triggered a more vociferous response from right-wing politicians and their evangelical puppet masters.  It prompted some to malign Disney as the “tragic kingdom.”

Meanwhile, buried on page 3 of the ‘Metropolitan’ section of that same “Dallas Morning News” issue was a brief story on something I found even more alarming: approximately 40% of children in Texas at the time had no health insurance.  I literally stopped when I read that.  I presumed, in my naiveté about the human condition, that all infants and children were automatically covered by some type of health insurance.  The piece – all of half a page – highlighted a family who lived in a trailer park just outside Dallas.  I can’t remember the details, but both parents worked and had two kids.  The family was just one of hundreds across the state.  I looked again at the SBC gang on the front page and wondered if they were even aware of the trailer park family; a family that could barely take care of itself, much less go on a Disney cruise with untold numbers of homosexuals allegedly lurking behind the lounge chairs.

I thought about that situation again when the bizarre case of Marlise Muñoz arose.  Last November Muñoz, a 33-year-old paramedic, suffered an apparent pulmonary embolism at her home in Haltom City, a Fort Worth suburb.  Her husband, Erick, found her on the kitchen floor after she’d gotten up in the pre-dawn hours to prepare a bottle for their toddler son.  Two days later officials at John Peter Smith hospital declared Marlise brain dead.  Her husband and parents asked that she be removed from life support.  But, the hospital refused.  Marlise was about 14 weeks pregnant at the time, and the hospital cited a little-known state law, the Texas Advance Directives Act, that forbids the cessation of life-saving measures on a pregnant woman.  Passed in 1989, “Texas Statutes – Section 166.049: Pregnant Patients” is supposedly meant to protect the lives of the unborn.  It’s an adjunct to “Texas Statutes – Section 166.046: Procedure If Not Effectuating a Directive or Treatment Decision,” which addresses life support for individuals in comatose or vegetative states.

The usual cacophony of pro-life voices raised themselves in self-righteous indignation in support of the unborn Muñoz child.  Muñoz supporters reacted by pointing to a simple fact: the woman was brain dead.  If someone’s heart stops, it can be resuscitated with electric shocks; if the lungs collapse, air can be pumped back into them; if the kidneys cease functioning, the individual can be hooked up to a dialysis machine.  But, you can’t perform CPR on a person’s brain.  Once a person’s brain dies, that’s it!  There’s no coming back.  It’s why the brain stem is the first part of the human embryo to form.

People often joke about brain death.  I point out that it’s a symptom of many politicians and entertainment celebrities.  In fact, it’s almost a requirement among reality TV stars.  But, brain death is a seriously finite condition.

Yet, pro-life activists lined up outside John Peter Smith demanding the hospital do everything it could to save the life of Marlise Muñoz’s unborn baby.  And, the hospital was trying to do just that – pumping oxygen into the dead woman’s corpse.  Her flesh was beginning to rot, however, and her body was developing both external and internal sores.  Moreover, examinations of the fetus showed its lower extremities were so badly deformed no one could determine its gender.

Erick Muñoz finally resorted to legal action against JPS.  On January 24, State District Judge R.H. Wallace concurred and ordered the hospital to let Marlise go.  “Mrs. Muñoz is dead,” he wrote.  “Defendants are ordered to pronounce Mrs. Muñoz dead and remove the ventilator and all other ‘life-sustaining’ treatment from the body.”

JPS chose not to fight the order and removed Marlise from life support on the 26th; what was left of her body died five minutes later.  As a token of love and affection, Erick named the unborn baby Nicole, his wife’s middle name.  No longer held captive to a ghoulish medical experiment, Marlise’s family can now bury her and moved forward with their lives as best as possible.  Erick still has a toddler son to raise.

This entire imbroglio comes less than a year after Texas State Senator Wendy Davis launched an 11-hour filibuster against a law that imposed heavy restrictions on abortion providers in Texas.  It was a move that garnered international attention and propelled Davis to launch a bid for the governorship.  The Muñoz case and the Texas abortion law are related, albeit tangentially, because of that pro-life label so many ideological conservatives here and around the nation like to claim.

Pro-life advocates really aren’t pro-life – that is, in the truest sense of the term – they’re pro-birth.  For some perverted reason, they want to control human reproduction.  They declare that it’s for the good of humanity; a desire to give all babies a chance at life.  I suppose, however, they really just want more bodies to work in the fields and the factories, or to go to war so oil and energy companies can earn more profits.  If pro-lifers truly are in favor of life, they wouldn’t stand idly by as literally millions of people, including infants and children, go to bed hungry in this country every night.  While the evangelical crowd thinks they’re doing society a favor by protesting the perceived horrors of homosexuality, they ignore the real tragedy of the uninsured, which has grown exponentially since 1997.  Conservative Republicans in the U.S. Congress were eager to invade Iraq in 2003, but have been slow in providing pay increases to military personnel.  We can expect that from a pack of old lawyers whose own pay and benefits are secure.

And, we can expect pro-lifers to holler in contempt that people like Judge R.H. Wallace don’t value human life.  Some are already publicly shaming Wallace and demanding his impeachment.  But, if the U.S. values human life so much, it wouldn’t boast one of the highest homicide rates among developed countries.  It wouldn’t tolerate 49 million Americans living with food insecurity (as of 2012).  Pro-life doesn’t mean a society fights like hell to allow (or force) a pregnant woman to give birth.  It means it fights for the welfare of all its citizens.  Life may begin at conception, but it doesn’t end when the umbilical cord is cut.

1 Comment

Filed under Essays

Worst Quote of the Week

512bbf2a8ee07.preview-300

“If babies had guns they wouldn’t be aborted.”

U.S. Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, on his new campaign bumper sticker.

Well, that just makes a whole hell of a lot of sense!  But, wait!  He might be onto something.  Babies holding guns – not much different than politicians holding guns.  I mean, at least babies are too little to know what the hell they’re doing; while most politicians are too little-minded to know what the hell they’re doing.

2 Comments

Filed under News

Glory Holes

261100b07b0c0ac1d18882_L__V387535814_SX200_

“O that the murderous effect of abortion in the Black and Latino communities, destroying tens of thousands at the hands of White abortionists, would explode with the same reprehensible reputation as lynching.”

— John Piper, a minister quoted on Heartbeat International’s Urban Initiative web page.  The organization runs “pregnancy crisis centers.”  Critics note that many of the centers offer inaccurate information about abortion and contraception and exist primarily to persuade pregnant women not to terminate a pregnancy.

That’s ingenious!  Convince poor colored women that abortion is just a Caucasian-inspired plot to annihilate them the same way Custer killed off all those Indians!  I’m sure Heartbeat International offers plenty of information on how they’ll help these women care for the kids once they’re born, too.

Leave a comment

Filed under News

Start Counting: Week 1, Week 2…

Embryo,_8_cells

“Those decisions for children who are conceived in rape or in incest will need to be made prior to the 20-week mark.”

– Elizabeth Graham, head of Texas Right to Life, discussing Gov. Rick Perry’s promotion of “fetal pain” legislation banning abortions after 20 weeks.  The measure would include exceptions for women whose lives are in danger, but not for victims of rape or incest.

Texas Legislature’s Proposed Pregnancy Calendar:

Weeks 1 and 2 – Your pregnancy begins as your body gears up for ovulation and prepares for fertilization, a.k.a. “The Beginning of Life.”

Week 3 – As sperm meets egg, fertilization occurs and your child takes form – as a tiny group of cells.  But, it’s still a kid, so start picking names!

Week 4 – That cluster of God-created cells splits to form the placenta and the embryo.  The specialized parts of your baby begin to develop – including the heart where God will live.

Week 5 – Your baby’s heart and circulatory system are developing – this is God’s plan – and a home pregnancy test will confirm this God’s child.

Week 6 – Your baby’s face takes shape, which is the face of you and your husband (you do have a husband, right?).

Week 7 – Your baby’s brain begins to grow, so it will start to think how God will fit into its life.

Week 8 – As your baby starts moving in the womb, morning sickness sets in – but this is the price all women must pay for the sin of Eve giving Adam that apple.

Week 9 – Your baby is busy building muscle, but all you may want to do these days is take a nice long nap.

Week 10 – Your baby’s bones and cartilage begin to develop more.  Constipation intensifies, but again that’s the price you must pay for the sins of Eve.

Week 11 – That adorable child inside you takes on a more human appearance now – the true face of God should be crystal clear on the sonogram.

Week 12 – While it may seem as if you’ve doubled in size with pregnancy weight gain, it’s your baby who actually has.

Week 13 – As the first trimester comes to a close, your baby’s about the size of a…well, an apple.

Week 14 – Your baby begins to sprout some angel hair.

Week 15 – Your baby begins kicking those little legs and flexing those elbows, as it fills with the spirit of God.

Week 16 – Your baby’s eyesight begins to develop, which means it can see any sharp instruments coming towards it!

Week 17 – Your baby is practicing sucking and swallowing as it gets ready to nurse.

Week 18 – You might start to feel your baby moving around, which will continue even after you get it into a church pew.

Week 19 – Your baby’s gender can be determined at this point.  That means – especially if it’s a male child – your fate as a mother has been set.  And, you can’t go back.

Week 20 – Don’t even think about it, bitch!

Leave a comment

Filed under News

Quote of the Day

“I’m as black as Obama, and I’m tired of any legitimate criticism of the President’s policies reduced to lazy and ludicrous charges of racism. Obama and the Democrats have been promising a whole lot of hope and change but, instead, have delivered higher unemployment, higher poverty rates and millions more welfare enrollees while aggressively promoting abortion in the black community.”

– Ryan Bomberger, an Emmy Award-winning Creative Director and founder of the web site “So Out Loud.”  Bomberger is also responsible for the creation of controversial billboards that claim abortion has targeted the Black community in America.

Leave a comment

Filed under News