Only United States laws that are enacted by legally elected representatives of the people of the country should be followed by all branches of government. No religious, ethnic, cultural or social laws should be enforced. Additionally, all laws that are enacted should also pass the constitutional test to ensure that it is not violating individual rights that are granted explicitly and implicitly by the Constitution.
There, that is about as clear of a statement that can be written defining what laws courts and the other branches of governments should enforce. That means that Christian religious laws should not be enforce. Neither should Jewish, Hindu and any of the other 4,200 religious and cultural groups in the country.
Recently, lawmakers in Tennessee have proposed legislation that says judges can not consider Islam’s Sharia law in making rulings in their courts. Similar laws have been proposed in other states and Oklahoma passed a citizen’s referendum that also prohibits Sharia Law from being used in a judge’s decision. A responsible community should support this law if it included the other 4,200 other religions that are found in the country. But, by selecting only one religion’s law, it both sets up a situation that can be much too easily abused and shouldn’t pass the constitutional test.
The only reason lawmakers in those states, conservative Republicans all, are proposing such legislation is for political gain. They make their supporters feel good about them instead of working with them to do the right thing. Sharia law is no more likely to be recognized by the United States’ Court system than any other religious based laws. Yet, these legislators continue.
What is also disturbing, this type of law, directed solely at one group of people, begin to move us in the direction of pre-world war Germany. At first, Jews were just blamed for the bad economy. Once it took hold in the country, they were excluded from everyday life by being barricaded in the ghettoes. We all know where that ended up.
Don’t fall for any of this. The proposed legislation in Tennessee and elsewhere has nothing to do with reality. It wastes governments time, creates laws that are not necessary and is unconstitutional.
A Responsible Community can’t support any law that directly targets a religion.
-----
Responsible Community Working Together in Shared Responsibility.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Members of Westboro Baptist can continue to demonstate
“The only way for a different ruling is to shred the First Amendment,” said Margie Phelps, the lawyer defending the minister of the Westboro Church. Members of the church routinely demonstrate at the funerals of soldiers who have died in in the service. In a 8 to 1 margin, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the church’s right to continue those demonstrations.
In May of 2006, Albert Synder held funeral services for his son, Matthew, who died from a non combat-related vehicle accident in Al Anbar province, Iraq. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas demonstrated at the funeral. Church members believe that the military is being punished by God for the country’s tolerance of homosexuality. A few weeks after the funeral, Albert Synder found a particularly hateful poem on the internet by Margie Phelps. It was about Synder’s son and how terribly he was raised. Synder sued the church for emotional distress. Lower courts sided with Synder, but the Phelps pursued the case to the Supreme Court.
The Responsible Community wrote about the suit when it reached the Supreme Court last fall, “Phelps is disgusting, but should receive our support.” The closing of that post was, “it would be difficult for the Supreme Court to rule any other way other then expressing their disgust with the church even though they support their right to say it.”
Chief Justice John Roberts didn’t disappoint. Writing the opinion for the majority, he said, "Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker."
No right has any value if it can’t be expressed. To silence the members of this church would be to deny the most fundamental of all rights, the freedom of expression. If that expression causes harm that can be measured in the loss of property, defames someone or places people in harm’s way then it can be restricted. But, the content of their speech was a political opinion that just happened to involve Synder. The frequency of the demonstrations and the church’s practice of showing up at the military funerals of Catholics, Jews and many other groups clearly indicates they were expressing an outrage of policy, not of Synder or his son.
As the father of a son, I can only image the pain that Albert Synder experienced when reading those hateful words. But, if we silenced all speech that caused pain, we would silence one of the things that makes us strong, the public forum of ideas that allow us to self examine our collective soul.
In May of 2006, Albert Synder held funeral services for his son, Matthew, who died from a non combat-related vehicle accident in Al Anbar province, Iraq. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas demonstrated at the funeral. Church members believe that the military is being punished by God for the country’s tolerance of homosexuality. A few weeks after the funeral, Albert Synder found a particularly hateful poem on the internet by Margie Phelps. It was about Synder’s son and how terribly he was raised. Synder sued the church for emotional distress. Lower courts sided with Synder, but the Phelps pursued the case to the Supreme Court.
The Responsible Community wrote about the suit when it reached the Supreme Court last fall, “Phelps is disgusting, but should receive our support.” The closing of that post was, “it would be difficult for the Supreme Court to rule any other way other then expressing their disgust with the church even though they support their right to say it.”
Chief Justice John Roberts didn’t disappoint. Writing the opinion for the majority, he said, "Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker."
No right has any value if it can’t be expressed. To silence the members of this church would be to deny the most fundamental of all rights, the freedom of expression. If that expression causes harm that can be measured in the loss of property, defames someone or places people in harm’s way then it can be restricted. But, the content of their speech was a political opinion that just happened to involve Synder. The frequency of the demonstrations and the church’s practice of showing up at the military funerals of Catholics, Jews and many other groups clearly indicates they were expressing an outrage of policy, not of Synder or his son.
As the father of a son, I can only image the pain that Albert Synder experienced when reading those hateful words. But, if we silenced all speech that caused pain, we would silence one of the things that makes us strong, the public forum of ideas that allow us to self examine our collective soul.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Personal responsiblity in the news this week
Personal responsibility is making head line news this week. Two of the best examples – or worse, depending on your point of view – are Bernie Madoff and Charlie Sheen.
Let’s start with Madoff. Most of us know that he took billions of dollars from the rich and poor to run his own ponzi scheme. Banks, the government, security firms and other organizations that were suppose to catch this type of criminal activity missed it for many years. The organizations missed it because Madoff was making money for everyone and nobody wanted to risk that changing.
In an interview with Madoff that has received a lot of air play recently, we never hear him say he accepts full responsibility for his actions without conditions. He may say he did the things he is accused of, but says he is a good man. Madoff says that the many people that gave him money enabled made him. Or, that it was just a mistake that he could not get out of. The bottom line is, he is a crook and is right where he belongs, in prison. Those that looked the other way all this time should be there with him.
In another high profile interview, Charlie Sheen never takes full responsibility for any of his actions. He is in his mid forties and has the behavior of an unrestraint teen. Beside his abuse of alcohol and drugs, he has abused his wives, children and friends. (I am using a loose definition for abuse that includes mistreatment and not just physical abuse.) If it wasn’t for his money that enables him to continue his lifestyle, he would be a bum on the street if not in jail. Right now, CBS has cancelled the rest of the season of the show he headlined in, “Two and a Half Men.” The other stars in the show most likely are financially okay. But consider the others that work for the show that are just regular people. They are now out of a job because Charlie is a drunk.
Charlie has a high profile interview being shown on many media outlets. Again, like Madoff and many other people like the two of them, Charlie never takes full responsibility without any conditions. He says that he is a misunderstood person. That people need to see things from his point of view to understand his behavior. But the irony is that his self centered ego doesn’t allow him to see things the responsible way, that he is hurting other people.
In a community, let’s set about being responsible. The two of them certainly are wrong, we can all agree to that. But the reason Madoff did so well is because everyone around him didn’t do the responsible thing of asking questions. The most basic being, how is it you are doing so well when everyone else is not? As for Charlie, the show, “Two and a Half Men” is one of the most watched shows on television. With so many people tuning in each week to see Charlie act out his real life, all of us have enabled him to continue abusing the people around him. Stop watching the show and CBS will replace it with something else.
A responsible community can set a goal of a safe environment. But, unless people accept responsibility for their actions; not only after, but before; the community will never be able to fully achieve that goal.
-----
Let’s start with Madoff. Most of us know that he took billions of dollars from the rich and poor to run his own ponzi scheme. Banks, the government, security firms and other organizations that were suppose to catch this type of criminal activity missed it for many years. The organizations missed it because Madoff was making money for everyone and nobody wanted to risk that changing.
In an interview with Madoff that has received a lot of air play recently, we never hear him say he accepts full responsibility for his actions without conditions. He may say he did the things he is accused of, but says he is a good man. Madoff says that the many people that gave him money enabled made him. Or, that it was just a mistake that he could not get out of. The bottom line is, he is a crook and is right where he belongs, in prison. Those that looked the other way all this time should be there with him.
In another high profile interview, Charlie Sheen never takes full responsibility for any of his actions. He is in his mid forties and has the behavior of an unrestraint teen. Beside his abuse of alcohol and drugs, he has abused his wives, children and friends. (I am using a loose definition for abuse that includes mistreatment and not just physical abuse.) If it wasn’t for his money that enables him to continue his lifestyle, he would be a bum on the street if not in jail. Right now, CBS has cancelled the rest of the season of the show he headlined in, “Two and a Half Men.” The other stars in the show most likely are financially okay. But consider the others that work for the show that are just regular people. They are now out of a job because Charlie is a drunk.
Charlie has a high profile interview being shown on many media outlets. Again, like Madoff and many other people like the two of them, Charlie never takes full responsibility without any conditions. He says that he is a misunderstood person. That people need to see things from his point of view to understand his behavior. But the irony is that his self centered ego doesn’t allow him to see things the responsible way, that he is hurting other people.
In a community, let’s set about being responsible. The two of them certainly are wrong, we can all agree to that. But the reason Madoff did so well is because everyone around him didn’t do the responsible thing of asking questions. The most basic being, how is it you are doing so well when everyone else is not? As for Charlie, the show, “Two and a Half Men” is one of the most watched shows on television. With so many people tuning in each week to see Charlie act out his real life, all of us have enabled him to continue abusing the people around him. Stop watching the show and CBS will replace it with something else.
A responsible community can set a goal of a safe environment. But, unless people accept responsibility for their actions; not only after, but before; the community will never be able to fully achieve that goal.
-----
Monday, February 28, 2011
Separation of powers
Why is it that we have three branches of government?
In the Constitution, the legislative, the executive and the judicial branches of government were created. Very wisely, each was created with autonomy that prevented each of the branches from interfering with the other. The legislative branch received the power to make the laws. The executive branch received the power to enforce the laws. In the end, the judicial branch was given the power to decide if a law was violated and what the punishment should be.
The Defense of Marriage act was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in September of 1996. It was passed by both the House and the Senate with wide margins. It states, in simple terms, that no state is required to except the marriage license of two people of the same sex solely based on that union being excepted in another state. It also states that a marriage is between one man and one woman.
A federal court in July 2010 declared that the portion of the law that states a marriage is only between one man and one woman unconstitutional. The federal government challenged that ruling in October 2010. But recently, United States Attorney General Eric Holder withdrew the challenge at President Obama’s request.
The ruling by the federal court doesn’t invalidate the law. That would take a ruling by the Supreme Court. And, the executive branch has not withdrawn completely from the case. This allows the challenge to continue and the House of Representatives can join the fight by ordering the judiciary committee to defend the act if it wishes.
The issue about the morality of same sex marriages aside, the National Organization for Marriage and other conservative groups are challenging President Obama’s authority to withdraw the challenge of the federal court ruling. They say, it is his responsibility to defend the laws of the country. But, the constitution allows the President to be silent on the issue because of the separation of powers. But, those same conservative groups, as far as the research on the issue revealed, have not leveled the same criticism at the House of Representatives who didn’t join the challenge in the first place. The House, because of the separation of powers, can also opt out of the fight, even though they were party to the original act.
The Constitutional issue is clear here. The separation of powers concept doesn’t compelled the executive branch to enforce a law it if feels it is not within its priorities. If the House challenges the court ruling of the law and wins, it can then challenge the President’s priorities and the go back to the courts again.
-----
In the Constitution, the legislative, the executive and the judicial branches of government were created. Very wisely, each was created with autonomy that prevented each of the branches from interfering with the other. The legislative branch received the power to make the laws. The executive branch received the power to enforce the laws. In the end, the judicial branch was given the power to decide if a law was violated and what the punishment should be.
The Defense of Marriage act was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in September of 1996. It was passed by both the House and the Senate with wide margins. It states, in simple terms, that no state is required to except the marriage license of two people of the same sex solely based on that union being excepted in another state. It also states that a marriage is between one man and one woman.
A federal court in July 2010 declared that the portion of the law that states a marriage is only between one man and one woman unconstitutional. The federal government challenged that ruling in October 2010. But recently, United States Attorney General Eric Holder withdrew the challenge at President Obama’s request.
The ruling by the federal court doesn’t invalidate the law. That would take a ruling by the Supreme Court. And, the executive branch has not withdrawn completely from the case. This allows the challenge to continue and the House of Representatives can join the fight by ordering the judiciary committee to defend the act if it wishes.
The issue about the morality of same sex marriages aside, the National Organization for Marriage and other conservative groups are challenging President Obama’s authority to withdraw the challenge of the federal court ruling. They say, it is his responsibility to defend the laws of the country. But, the constitution allows the President to be silent on the issue because of the separation of powers. But, those same conservative groups, as far as the research on the issue revealed, have not leveled the same criticism at the House of Representatives who didn’t join the challenge in the first place. The House, because of the separation of powers, can also opt out of the fight, even though they were party to the original act.
The Constitutional issue is clear here. The separation of powers concept doesn’t compelled the executive branch to enforce a law it if feels it is not within its priorities. If the House challenges the court ruling of the law and wins, it can then challenge the President’s priorities and the go back to the courts again.
-----
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Oil is our heroin
It is interesting that the Tea Party can get so upset about the new Health Care law and how it abuses the citizens of this country, yet ignore the most obvious signs in other countries that they are abusing their own citizens.
The Tea Party, for the most, grew out of the anger from the Health Care legislation. There were, of course, many other reasons that the Angry Crowd finally organized to try and “take back” America. (As if someone had actually “taken it” in the first place.) We all remember the angry faces at the health care town meetings around the country claiming that the legislation was taking away our freedoms. There are also a big reason the conservatives won many seats in congress in the last election.
Part of the mantra the party use was to cut taxes, thereby, cutting the size of government. The size of the America government, or so they say, had grown to the point that it threaten our civil liberties. By cutting the flow of cash, governments would have to make deep and dramatic cuts, reduce the bureaucracy and let the people take more control over their lives.
But, the moment we apply that philosophy to another issue, the same people that want to cut the flow of cash to their own government, will not take the necessary steps to stop the flow of cash to many other truly illegal governments around the world.
What is the other issue? Oil. It is the heroin of our culture. We don’t care what the pusher man does as long as the oil continues to flow across the ocean to keep our way of life going. It is believed that only oil can fuel our way of life and to lose it would cripple us in such a way that our economy would collapse around us like castles of sand on a beach.
But, the reason there is such unrest in the parts of the world right now is because we have supported governments that really do oppress their citizens. The only reason we do this is because they have oil that we want or because they support us in making sure the oil keeps flowing.
This blog is not about economics and only occasionally has anything been written about it. This particular post is not about the economics of oil directly. This post is about oppressing people indirectly and not taking any responsibility to stop it.
Some say that we should leave it to the market to guide our actions. But markets aren’t always correct. If it were, the cost of oil would be higher than it is now because it would somehow include the cost of oppression, the oppression that the countries that supply our oil visits on their citizens. All those countries that supply oil to the world such as Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iran and other theocracies and outright totalitarian regimes would not be able to sell their oil on the market if it included the cost in human suffering because it would be so much higher. Countries that supply oil that are legitimate governments would be able to sell their oil much cheaper.
But that isn’t to say that we should ignore markets all together. We can use them in a responsible way that helps us realize the true cost of a product, in this case, oil. By raising the cost of oil artificially in a steady, regulated way, the market would know that in a year or two what the cost of oil would be. So would the average person in the community. The economy could plan ahead instead of blindly watching the cost of oil on a daily basis and making decision that are short term.
We should tax oil and perhaps other energy supplies in a modest, but growing amount each year, if not monthly. The increase in cost would push the market in the direction that we need it to go, to other sources. The additional revenue would help pay for the deficit.
With less oil being purchased, especially from countries that suppress their population, there would not be the funds to maintain oppressive governments that now exist.
We would also not be surprised one morning to wake up to the news that more and more countries that supply our heroin is now in turbulence.
-----
The Tea Party, for the most, grew out of the anger from the Health Care legislation. There were, of course, many other reasons that the Angry Crowd finally organized to try and “take back” America. (As if someone had actually “taken it” in the first place.) We all remember the angry faces at the health care town meetings around the country claiming that the legislation was taking away our freedoms. There are also a big reason the conservatives won many seats in congress in the last election.
Part of the mantra the party use was to cut taxes, thereby, cutting the size of government. The size of the America government, or so they say, had grown to the point that it threaten our civil liberties. By cutting the flow of cash, governments would have to make deep and dramatic cuts, reduce the bureaucracy and let the people take more control over their lives.
But, the moment we apply that philosophy to another issue, the same people that want to cut the flow of cash to their own government, will not take the necessary steps to stop the flow of cash to many other truly illegal governments around the world.
What is the other issue? Oil. It is the heroin of our culture. We don’t care what the pusher man does as long as the oil continues to flow across the ocean to keep our way of life going. It is believed that only oil can fuel our way of life and to lose it would cripple us in such a way that our economy would collapse around us like castles of sand on a beach.
But, the reason there is such unrest in the parts of the world right now is because we have supported governments that really do oppress their citizens. The only reason we do this is because they have oil that we want or because they support us in making sure the oil keeps flowing.
This blog is not about economics and only occasionally has anything been written about it. This particular post is not about the economics of oil directly. This post is about oppressing people indirectly and not taking any responsibility to stop it.
Some say that we should leave it to the market to guide our actions. But markets aren’t always correct. If it were, the cost of oil would be higher than it is now because it would somehow include the cost of oppression, the oppression that the countries that supply our oil visits on their citizens. All those countries that supply oil to the world such as Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iran and other theocracies and outright totalitarian regimes would not be able to sell their oil on the market if it included the cost in human suffering because it would be so much higher. Countries that supply oil that are legitimate governments would be able to sell their oil much cheaper.
But that isn’t to say that we should ignore markets all together. We can use them in a responsible way that helps us realize the true cost of a product, in this case, oil. By raising the cost of oil artificially in a steady, regulated way, the market would know that in a year or two what the cost of oil would be. So would the average person in the community. The economy could plan ahead instead of blindly watching the cost of oil on a daily basis and making decision that are short term.
We should tax oil and perhaps other energy supplies in a modest, but growing amount each year, if not monthly. The increase in cost would push the market in the direction that we need it to go, to other sources. The additional revenue would help pay for the deficit.
With less oil being purchased, especially from countries that suppress their population, there would not be the funds to maintain oppressive governments that now exist.
We would also not be surprised one morning to wake up to the news that more and more countries that supply our heroin is now in turbulence.
-----
Monday, February 21, 2011
Why do you need a silly reason to carry a gun?
Why do you need a silly reason to carry a gun. Why not just say, I want to carry a gun because I want to carry a gun.
GeorgiaCarry.org is suing Georgia over the state’s open carry law. The law states that people can’t carry a gun into a church as well as a few other places. Since 2007 the organization, that was founded to “protect the Second Amendment”, has been fighting cities and counties in Georgia to repeal gun laws. With their sights now on a state law, they claim that the restriction against openly carrying a gun at church restricts their right to exercise their freedom of religion.
Yes, you read that correctly. The group claims that the restriction that prevents the carrying of a gun in church restricts the right to exercise the freedom of religion. They suggest that they would not be able to protect themselves and their families if they don’t have a gun. Therefore, that fear prevents them from going to church.
The Constitution’s Second Amendment does protect the right to bear arms. It states:
The news reports don’t say why Georgia felt they needed a law that restricts the open carry of weapons in churches. Communities need a real reason that is supported by evidence to enact any law. Since the arguments made by those that would like the law declared unconstitutional were not about why Georgia made the law, it is hoped that the state had a solid reason.
The issues here are about both the Constitution and a reasonable response of a community to a concern it has. The Constitution does clearly state a right to own a weapon. The Georgia law didn’t disregard the constitution all together by outlawing the ownership of guns. Chicago and Washington, D. C. tried that. The gun ownership laws in those cities were struck down by the Supreme Court.
That doesn’t mean that congress or a legislature in a state can’t prescribe reasonable guidelines for the right to carry a gun. A community, in this case the people of Georgia, through there rightfully elected legislature, has the right to say that even though we can own guns, we just can’t carry or use them in situations where there is a perceived danger. Would anyone argue that we can own a gun and fire them where we want? Or, that we should be able to carry a grenade launcher into a bank?
If GeorgiaCarry.org thinks that people should be able to carry guns when they go to church and Georgia can’t demonstrate a reason they should not be able to, okay. But to say that it prevents people from exercising their freedom of religion, is a none argument.
Georgia didn’t make the ownership of weapons illegal. An over reaching response to any concern by the community would be to make guns illegal to own under all circumstances. According to the Constitution, people do have the right to own guns. But no right is absolute and responsible communities can prescribe reasonable restrictions on any right.
-----
GeorgiaCarry.org is suing Georgia over the state’s open carry law. The law states that people can’t carry a gun into a church as well as a few other places. Since 2007 the organization, that was founded to “protect the Second Amendment”, has been fighting cities and counties in Georgia to repeal gun laws. With their sights now on a state law, they claim that the restriction against openly carrying a gun at church restricts their right to exercise their freedom of religion.
Yes, you read that correctly. The group claims that the restriction that prevents the carrying of a gun in church restricts the right to exercise the freedom of religion. They suggest that they would not be able to protect themselves and their families if they don’t have a gun. Therefore, that fear prevents them from going to church.
The Constitution’s Second Amendment does protect the right to bear arms. It states:
- “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
According to the debates on the Constitution that swirled around at the time, the authors were concerned that a strong military could be used against the country’s citizens. That is partly why they wrote in the document that funding for the military should not be longer than two years. The country, though, still needed to be defended in times of crisis. The response was to ensure that each state had a militia that was armed and trained. Yes, of course, they also knew at the time, many people needed a gun for hunting and protecting themselves from the “savages” that lived on the frontier.
The news reports don’t say why Georgia felt they needed a law that restricts the open carry of weapons in churches. Communities need a real reason that is supported by evidence to enact any law. Since the arguments made by those that would like the law declared unconstitutional were not about why Georgia made the law, it is hoped that the state had a solid reason.
The issues here are about both the Constitution and a reasonable response of a community to a concern it has. The Constitution does clearly state a right to own a weapon. The Georgia law didn’t disregard the constitution all together by outlawing the ownership of guns. Chicago and Washington, D. C. tried that. The gun ownership laws in those cities were struck down by the Supreme Court.
That doesn’t mean that congress or a legislature in a state can’t prescribe reasonable guidelines for the right to carry a gun. A community, in this case the people of Georgia, through there rightfully elected legislature, has the right to say that even though we can own guns, we just can’t carry or use them in situations where there is a perceived danger. Would anyone argue that we can own a gun and fire them where we want? Or, that we should be able to carry a grenade launcher into a bank?
If GeorgiaCarry.org thinks that people should be able to carry guns when they go to church and Georgia can’t demonstrate a reason they should not be able to, okay. But to say that it prevents people from exercising their freedom of religion, is a none argument.
Georgia didn’t make the ownership of weapons illegal. An over reaching response to any concern by the community would be to make guns illegal to own under all circumstances. According to the Constitution, people do have the right to own guns. But no right is absolute and responsible communities can prescribe reasonable restrictions on any right.
-----
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Let's not make it legal to kill abortion providers
So, you tell me what this means, especially the lines that are in bold…
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.
-----
- 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.
-----
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)