Corporations and Public Charities Fund Abortion Bans in many States

Charitable organizations should not be attempting to influence legislation at any level.  Yet, according to this article and others, charitable organizations helped shaped, support and pass the abortion legislation in Alabama and elsewhere.

Be mindful of these groups.  I ask that if you see them somewhere, don't do business with them or don't donate to their cause, not matter how benign it sounds.

If also requested that you speak up.  They have decided to enter the political sphere with their support to the Right.  They open the door for the Community to respond.

Want a sample of some?  How about Amazon, General Electric and Pfizer.

Rewire News

INVESTIGATIONS ABORTION

These Corporations and Public Charities Funded the state abortion laws.

Jun 14, 2019, 1:30pm Alex Kotch

Thank you for your consideration.

In Support of Christine Blasey Ford

We have recently heard about the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh, the judge that has been nominated to the Supreme Court by Donald Trump.  Christine Blasey Ford has accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault.    

It is being asked, mind you after the year of #metoo, why is Ford coming forward now.  Is this politically motivated?  Has she made it up?

I can tell you, it is very understandable that Ford has waited this long.  I am telling you as a man who has not experienced sexual assault, but as someone that has experienced a childhood full of personal degradation from the very people that are supposed to be your biggest protectors, my parents. 

In the 50’s and early 60’s, parents were given all the room they needed to raise their children, even if that meant there were clear signs of abuse.  Some of my abuse from my parents was even witnessed by family members and teachers, yet nothing was said to me or done to stop it.  (I must add, after rereading the blog post, there was one teacher that witnessed the degradation in her classroom after school hours.  It included my father hitting me more than once.  The next day, the teacher did approach me during the school day and asked if I was okay.  I said yes because I didn’t want to make things worse.  Maybe if I just keep my head down, this will pass.)  You take that as being your fault and that this is just normal life.  Everybody must go through this.  Your expression of outrage, pain and in the long run, depression is met with indifference.     

That indifference is the secondary society abuse that you receive.  It may not be direct physical abuse but is just as damaging to the soul.  Here you have been degraded to second class citizen in the family unit and now society (and the extended family) disregard your expressions and walk away from you.  Leaving you alone to deal with the problems on your own.

When overpowered by someone else, as I was by my parents, you believe that you did something to encourage the abuse.  You believe that nobody will believe you.

In Ford’s case, she was over powered by a man in one of the most degrading ways possible.  She was not in control of her own body.  She has also been quoted as saying she was in fear of her own life. 

Ford’s statement about her treatment would have been treated as mine.  Plus, at the time and certainly to this day, her gender makes a big difference. Woman are treated differently.  Their statements about abuse and assault are treated with indifference.  You shouldn’t have been in the room.  You must have done something that encouraged him.  You must have liked the attention. 

Does all that sound familiar?  You need only reread the preceding paragraphs about my own experiences to see there are not only parallels and similarities, but they are the same thing. 

All of this means you bury it.  But, even buried, it causes many problems in your life, even if you not be aware of it.  Afterall, isn’t that the lesson you learned from the society around you when you mentioned it? 

Then something changes.  Life comes down on you.  As a person that has been nurtured correctly by your parents or who has not had to bury deep and harsh trauma, you respond well.  You address the issues that you face, solve the problems and build a happy life.

But, if you have had trouble in your life and you are thinking of yourself as a second-class person, you don’t respond well. 

For me, it was facing all the responsibilities of being on my own.  Since my parents had taught me that I was unable of sustain my own life without them, I begin to fail at some of the most fundamental issues of life.  Yes, it was all the practical ones like managing my everyday life, but more importantly, it was personal relationships and not having a feeling of at least a small measure of happiness.

It sent me into hell.  In therapy, I had to dig into every pile of shit that I had pushed to the backroom of my mind and relive them.  Yes, relive.  Because, by reliving them you are given the opportunity to draw more life affirming conclusions that enable you learn to deal with the pressures of your life. 

For Ford, she went into therapy also.  This was before Kavanaugh.  She wasn’t waiting for him to be nominated to the Supreme Court, as if she knew some day he was going to be.  She went for personal reasons.  She wanted what I wanted and what every single person in this world wants, a small slice of happiness and peace.

Ford needed to relive the experience, as horrifying as that is, and draw a different conclusion.  That new conclusion is that Kavanaugh must be held responsible for his actions.

Now, I am here to tell you, Ford will still be held to some of the same societal indifference and degradation today as she would have been 30 years ago.  I know I am.  I have even given up explaining my childhood abuse to most people today because it is way to difficult to get past the first reaction most come up with, “Oh, every child has those same experiences, get over it.” 

For Ford, it is, why are you bringing it up now?  If you don’t understand the answer to that question, then you must be held as responsible as Kavanaugh.              

A shift in social attitudes

The campaign from the right tried to make the 2012 Presidential election a repudiation of President Obama’s economy.  The message was; there isn’t enough job growth, the economy is sluggish and the deficit is too high.  Many voters did buy into this message.  The electorate clearly moved to the right in this election. 

Most Americas it appears are fiscal conservatives.  In the past, when the economy was slow or sluggish, the incumbent faced certain defeat.  Votes may want their religion and their guns, but what they really want is a job and a future for their children.  There is nothing wrong with that.  After all, the thinking goes, without a healthy economy it may all be for naught.

With the blind confidence that the right’s strategy to focus on the economy was the correct one, many thought the voters wouldn’t notice the other ideas that the right would bring quietly with them to their elected posts.  But, those Republicans who could not be controlled by their party came out of the woodwork.  (Maybe a better word than “woodwork” might be “cave”.)  Most of the ideas from the most extreme Republicans were talking points from a century ago.  Birth control, rape, abortion, race, the rejection of gay rights, the role of government (or lack thereof) and many other old, tired ideas.  While the generation that came from those times may have been happy to talk about them, those from the last two generations rolled their eyes.

With an economy portrayed as being bad and an electorate that shifted to the right (actually, more like a shift to the center) should have been enough.  But, the social positions that the right holds so dearly brought it all back to focus.  It turned enough voters back in support of Obama. 

This represents a fundamental change in the social attitudes of the country, as slight as it may be.  In this election cyle, a president with a liberal social agenda won in what was portrayed as a sluggish economy.  Perhaps as many as four states (three for sure) supported marriage equity.  The voters want the financial reforms that came out of the crisis to stay in place.  They supported the continuation of the health care reform.  The right to choose will be left in place.  Gay rights will be supported by more and more people.  Also, many other ideas from the last two generations will now become accepted as part of a new life of freedom and security in the country.

If the Republicans continue with their current track of holding on to old social ideas they will soon be obscure.  But, if they change they may have a chance.  That of course, in the irony of the times, is actually what they are fighting against.

Abortion should remain legal and safe

Of all the hot issues, none is more deeply passionate to people than abortion.  But, just because of the heat, it can’t be ignored. 

Abortion should remain legal and safe in America. 

In the perfect world, as I wrote in, “Body autonomy, at the core of abortion rights,” in January of this year, everyone’s rights would be given the same weight.  The reality is that it can’t be done. 

The primary focus on all rights is the concept of body autonomy.  What happens to your body is in your control.  Government and society can’t force someone to work for someone else without their permission.  To force a woman to carry to term would mean that we are assigning second class rights to a large portion of society. 

Lately, many senatorial candidates from the right have said some very strange things about abortion, pregnancy, rape and incest.  The Republican Party believes that abortion should not be allowed in almost all cases, if not all.  For the life of me, I can’t understand saying abortion is wrong, but making allowances for rape and incest.  How far is the step in logic to support abortion for rape and incest but not for failure of medication or a simple mistake?

Romney has been all over the board on the issue.  While Governor he supported a woman’s right to make the choice.  Then, he didn’t think it should be allowed in any circumstances.  Now, he is coming back to the middle.  His party, the Republicans, as stated above, is against a woman’s right to choose.  If Romney was elected president, he would be hard pressed to move against the Republican Party and his own campaign statements.

Obama on the other hand is pro-choice.  He has not waived.

Obama receives the nod for his support of body autonomy.

Santorum doesn't believe in the right of privacy

Privacy is something we all take for granted.  We expect privacy in our personal affairs; our home life, in our thoughts, what we do and where we go.  The conversations that we have with our spouses, religious leaders and doctors we all expect to be private.  There are exceptions of course, as no right is absolute.

Privacy is the right to think, know, collect, research and act without the community, at will, knowing.  The only reason the community has any reasonable responsibility to violate an individual’s right of privacy; of course, any right; is by an investigation by the executive branch of the government.  If they determine that a crime has taken place, then they present the evidence to the judicial branch.  At that point, if a judge agrees, a search warrant can be issued for the search of your personal items and your person, if necessary.

But, again for clarity, privacy can be violated only after a crime is suspected and a judge has authorized the search.

The word privacy is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.  Some believe that the right is implied in some passages related to other rights.  The Fourth Amendment says that the government needs a warrant authorized by a judge to search your personal items.  That would imply that you have a right to privacy, otherwise, why need a warrant?  The Constitution in the Fifth Amendment states that you can’t be a witness against yourself, otherwise that would be an invasion of what you do or think, again, a privacy issue. 

Others say that the right to privacy is in the Ninth and Tenth amendment.  Essentially, the two amendments collectively state that we didn’t give the right of privacy to the community along with a many other un-numerated rights. 

If you believe that since the word privacy is not in the Constitution and that no reading of the document can be interpreted to mean that privacy is implied then you agree with Senator Rick Santorum, the prudential candidate.  He believes that there is no right to privacy because the word itself is not mentioned.  Santorum believes that privacy is not something we hold even if it isn’t, expressed or implied, in the Constitution.

Without a right of privacy, your private life could be invaded at will, with mere legislative action.  Your confessions with your religious leader could be made public record.  All your emails could be read.  The library books you check out at the library could be reviewed by anyone, for any reason, if the legislation enacted such a law.  With no right to privacy, your personal conversations and actions with your spouse and doctor could be open to the public.

But, would any of us, including those that may think Santorum is correct, think it okay to be followed around when there is no reason that we have committed a crime?

To a specific point about privacy, in Mississippi, they want to require doctors to violate their patient’s body privacy, without a warrant or judicial review, with a vaginal probe when a woman requests a legal procedure.  If a woman is requesting an abortion and a heartbeat can’t be detected with a standard ultra-sound, the attending physician will be required by the proposed law to use a vaginal probe to search for a heartbeat.  There is no medical reason for this procedure.  The woman has a right to visit a doctor and not lose her right of privacy.  Finally, a crime is not being committed – the police haven’t investigated and a judge has not authorized a search to search her body.          

So, how is it that this can be done?  The reason is simple; it is unreasonable and Unconstitutional response to a legal act, an abortion.  This is continuing in many states.  While in this case it is Mississippi, it is an invasion of privacy, something that Santorum thinks is not in the Constitution. 

Be careful.  If you lose one right based on the bigger issue of privacy, you will begin to lose it on all your rights.

-----

Body autonomy, at the core of abortion rights

In a perfect world, everyone’s rights would be given the same weight. But, the practical matter is, in a community that has its entire existence invested in the freedom of the individual, there are times when someone’s right must be overridden by someone else.

As examples, we can say troubling things that can harm people, but it is our right to express. When Occupy took over ground to stage their protests, they prevented others from using the property for other reasons. We take up arms to fight the enemy to save ourselves and our way of life, but many of our own and others die in the process. In the end, these and other freedoms that we as a community feel so fervently about are worth the loss.

All freedoms are based on body autonomy. It is the basic idea that individuals can’t be forced to submit to the will of others. It may have had a different meaning in the past, perhaps anchored in the anti-slavery movement. But, in this expanded usage, not only does it apply to involuntary servitude, but also to other freedoms.

As it is with all other freedoms, it is also true with abortion, perhaps with deeper implications. But, because the end result may be more troubling to some, it doesn’t mean that the individual freedom to make the choice is any less sacred. The fact is, a woman can’t be made to labor for someone else if she doesn’t choose to. To discount her right of body autonomy would be placing an entire class of people below the rights of all others.

Abortion will be a big issue in the upcoming election. Many of the candidates will talk high mindedly about how abortions should be stopped. But, when all the rhetoric is set aside, it will mean a woman is being forced to give up her right to body autonomy. During the election season, many states will also make an attempt to pass citizens initiatives that restrict or prevent abortions. Many will attempt to define life at conception or at the first heartbeat so abortion can be curtailed. It still means the same thing, woman will lose control.

Whatever the rhetoric or the passion, abortion must remain legal and safe in this world, this country and this community.

-----

Happy New Year

Happy New Year!

May this New Year bring you success in seeking your own personal happiness. May the privacy of your body be respected from everyone. That you can personally practice your own religion without interference. May who you love be given the same respect as anyone else in the community.

May you have the freedom to speak your mind and publish your ideas for others to consider. May you continue to have the right to join with others that share your outlook and ask that the community to address your concerns.

May you be safe in the environment. That you are safe and secure from invasion of outside forces and free of crime in your community. That government and business doesn’t intrude in your life any more than necessary.  That you free to own weapons. 

In this New Year, may the privacy of your home and other spaces you live and work in be as hollowed as the most sacred of places. May your personal property be free from intrusion. That if such a situation arises, that you are treated fairly by the courts and provided every opportunity to defend yourself.

As it should be, may the New Year allow you to openly inquire about all things. That you may share all that you have learned. In return, may you also have the right to openly challenge what others think so that the truth can be found.

May the community help when you have done everything possible but still find trouble. When you experience a loss of income, may the community share the responsibility in restoring your potential. That if your health is a problem, the community will be there to help.

In short, may you find that by respecting others and sharing the responsibility of the community with your neighbors, more will be accomplished than you could on your own.


-----

How far will we go?

The University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey was sued by 12 nurses who claimed they were forced to assist on abortion procedures. They said that it was against their religion to help doctors and other hospital staff. The university did settle with the nurses before it went to court. But, the precedent is set.

When the nurses originally complained, they were re-assigned so they would not be present at the actual procedure. But, the nurses were required to help out in the pre and post procedure. Other nurses had to be hired to cover for the complaining nurses’ re-assignment.

How far will our community allow people to object to an activity because it is against their religion or personal beliefs? Most of the time, this issue comes up with abortion. There are pharmacists who refuse to provide birth control pills or the morning after drug. There are religious schools that object to having to cover abortions in their health insurance plans.

But, there are other issues as well. There are religious landlords that don’t want to rent to unmarried or same sex couples. A few days ago a post was made to this blog about a women in a department store that would not allow a transgender to use the women’s dressing room in the store because of her personal religious beliefs, this despite store policy that allowed it.

If these types of complaints and actions are given approval by our communities and court systems, there will be many more that will arise. There will be the Muslim food handler that will not serve up the blue plate special at the local dinner because it is a pulled pork sandwich. There may be Christian therapist that will refuse to counsel parents that are seeking a divorce because married couples shouldn’t get divorced.

Individuals do have the right and the responsibility to act in their own conscience. The nurses that were discussed at the opening were trained in the professional long after Roe v Wade. They knew that at some point in time they may be involved in an abortion procedure. The nurses perhaps need to find a situation where they will not be involved. When other people open up a business, like the landlord mentioned above, and seek the protection from the community, they can’t at the same time refuse services to others in the community. People get to their position in life partly out of the help of others in the community. To refuse service to those that had a hand in helping them is just wrong.

This, of course, doesn’t mean that people need to help those that are involved in an illegal act. It is the individual’s responsibility to report such activity or risk being part of the crime. But, all of the mentioned situations here are legal.

It would be easy if we lived in a completely homogeneous society and culture. Everyone would believe in the same thing and there wouldn’t be any disagreement. But, ultimately, that leads to a form of dictatorship known as Racist Nationalism. This is just what happen to Germany under the Nazis. It is also what our culture complains the most about in other countries that have a strong religious leadership and makes all the finally judgments in the community. This is just what the court system is like in Iran; the top religious leader can strike down any law passed by the parliament.

Communities were created not so that they could separate into little enclaves, but so that they may live together in mutual support. By opening the way for individuals and groups to refuse to help others because of some difference between each other, we lay the ground work to break up into sectarian and partisan communities that will become dysfunctional at best. At worst, people from one enclave will refuse to defend another creating a cycle of revenge actions that will not stop.

To live in a community means that you agree to support each other. You still have individual choice, but having choice doesn’t mean you have to refuse to help others with their choices.

-----

Gingrich's plan for the courts is dangerous

Attorneys Generals for the Bush administration calls presidential candidate Newt Gingrich’s position on the courts dangerous.

Michael Mukasey and Alberto Gonzales in a recent television interview on Fox News criticized Gingrich’s idea of just making a law that prevents federal courts from ruling on things Gingrich doesn’t want them to. These are not liberals who might make automatic disparaging remarks about anything the republicans might say. These are two attorneys generals that have hard conservative credentials that were interview on a “news” network that takes hard conservative positions.

At the core of Gingrich’s position on the courts, is the idea that congress can make a law that doesn’t allow federal appellate courts or the Supreme Court to take cases on any issue that he, in agreement with congress, doesn’t want them to rule on. This would be limiting the jurisdiction of the courts that congress establishes.

One of the primary issues is abortion. Gingrich believes that this will stop the federal courts from striking down anti-abortion laws that states enact. It is Gingrich’s plan to return to the states the function of determining abortion rights without fear from the federal government. But, the rights we all enjoy, including abortion, are established in the Constitution by the Bill of Rights. The 14th amendment establishes that those rights fall under the protection of the federal government.

Congress under Article III section 2 does have the power to establish and expand a federal court system. But, Congress has limited power over the jurisdiction of the courts it establishes. Since the Constitution in the first ten amendments states that “Congress shall make no law” that takes away the rights of individuals, congress can’t take away the right of any federal court to make a judgment about federal law that may be in violation of the Bill of Rights.

If congress is given this power, there would be no check to the balance of power that congress or the president may exercise. That isn’t what the framers intended.

-----

Let's not make it legal to kill abortion providers

So, you tell me what this means, especially the lines that are in bold…

• Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to harm the unborn child of such person in a manner and to a degree likely to result in the death of the unborn child, or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is.

• Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, or the unborn child of any such enumerated person, if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished.

The lines that are in bold are the proposed changes to South Dakota’s law on justifiable homicide. State representative Phil Jensen is the author of the bill. Anyone reading the current law with the proposed changes can clearly interpret the meaning, that someone could kill an abortion doctor and claim that it was justifiable homicide.

In Rep. Jensen’s defense, he claims that he is merely attempting to bring consistency to current law. That, “This code only deals with illegal acts. Abortion is legal in this country. This has nothing to do with abortion.”

Well, it can be seen that he pretends to be correct in his statement about the proposed changes. But, in my reading of the changes it has everything to do with abortion.

Abortion is the most divisive issue in America today. It is legal in this country as Rep. Jensen points out. Those that want to keep if that way are not willing to compromise. Those that oppose abortion find it difficult to slide in the direction of making some abortions legal. Their wish is to stamp it out completely.

So, those that mean well for their point of view, make end runs. Attempts are made to control abortion, to slow it down. Policy and laws are created that laden the activity with bureaucracy that will at the very least limit those that seek an abortion. But, responsible communities must be very careful about the unforeseen consequences of any law. In the beginning, a law may have the best intensions. Bu, as the law works its way into everyday life, a downside often presents itself.

To focus on the conservatives in this issue, the RICO act (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) was envisioned as a way to break up organized crime. It made it illegal to create an organization that manages illegal activity. Great, it worked on getting many people involved in organized crime off the streets. The surprise came when anti-abortion organizations began feeling the sting of RICO charges for their illegal activities (although in some cases minor, like protests that trespassed on private property or more concerning activity like releasing names of abortion providers).

No matter what Rep. Jensen says about the changes he is proposing, just like the authors of the RICO act, it will have a downside. To provide anyone a defense (or for that matter, a crazed zealot reading between the lines) for killing a doctor or any other person working in a medical setting that provides abortions is not the right direction.

All of us should work at limiting the amount of abortions, such as preventing pregnancies. But, let’s make sure our best intentions don’t create more problems.

-----

Govenment should not be involved in morality

Government has no compelling reason to involved themselves in morality, only the law.

In Auburn Hills, Michigan, Planned Parenthood has purchased a building to convert into a clinic. 60 pro-life advocates attended the Auburn Hills City Council meeting a week ago to express their objections to the possibilty that the city will approve it.  Crossroads Pregnancy Center, Citizens for a Pro-Life Society and many other individuals would like Auburn Hills to prevent it.  Their concern is that Auburn Hills could become an “abortion capital” in the family oriented community.

The Auburn Hills city attorney, Derk Beckerlet, said that the city has no legal grounds to refuse Planned Parenthood’s clinic based solely on the groups abortion operations. He also said that abortion is a federal issue, not the city’s, and that the city council meeting was not the correct forum for debating the issue.

Beckerlet is absolutely correct. The city has no more right to refuse the clinic based on abortion then to disallow a church because of its religion. Or to make a law banning speech based on prior approval.

Government must not involve themselves in the prevailing morality. That isn't its proper role.  By giving government that power, when the prevailing morality shifts the other way, the new morality will impose their own rules.

-----