Category Archives: morality

Dehumanizing Babies

Posted on by
Reply

Florida has a law (HB5, Reducing Fetal and Infant Mortality Act) banning abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Florida’s Governor DeSantis (R) has characterized the law as

protect[ing] babies in the womb who have beating hearts, who can move, who can taste, who can see, and who can feel pain.

Planned Parenthood and the ACLU have sued, claiming that the ban violates the Florida Constitution. The Florida Constitution, Art I, Sect 23, grants a right of privacy to every natural person. The only part of the Florida Constitution that directly addresses abortion is Art X, Sect 22, which authorizes the State’s legislature to enact laws requiring notification of a minor’s parent or guardian prior to termination of the minor’s pregnancy.

Whitney White, a staff attorney with the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project:

…we are dismayed that it has allowed this dangerous ban to remain in effect and to harm real people each and every day until this case is finally decided[.]

The State’s district-level judge, Leon County Circuit Court Judge John Cooper, siding with PP and the ACLU in issuing an injunction barring enforcement, wrote in part that (as cited by Fox News)

the Florida Constitution contains an explicit “right to privacy” that is “much broader in scope” than any privacy right under the United States Constitution. He further ruled that a 15-week cutoff for abortions is not supported by sufficient state interest.

Florida appealed the judge’s ruling and got the injunction lifted; the matter now is before the State’s Supreme Court.

It’s important to note that, both the ACLU’s and Cooper’s arguments can have legitimacy only by denying that unborn babies—especially after those 15 weeks—are not “real people,” are not natural persons. The only way in which the law’s abortion cutoff time is unsupported by sufficient State interest is by denying that unborn babies are not natural persons. After all, a core responsibility—a core duty—of the State government is to see to the safety and welfare of every “real” natural person in the State.

This is Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and a Florida judge shamefully denying babies’ personhood, shamefully dehumanizing babies, just because they’re unborn.

But It Wasn’t Me

Posted on by
Reply

The re-elect Lori Lightfoot for Chicago mayor sent an email to area high schools and to City Colleges of Chicago asking teachers to grant class credit to student volunteers who would work on her campaign. Not on any campaign for mayor or for any city office, but only on Lightfoot’s campaign for mayor.

When the campaign’s move was publicly exposed, Lightfoot claimed the email was a mistake and shouldn’t have gone out.

Then she blamed a junior staffer for the foul-up.

While Lightfoot called the email a mistake and said she was apologizing, putting all the blame on one young staffer. [sic] Lightfoot said she only learned the staffer reached out to CPS teachers and City Colleges staff on work emails Wednesday afternoon.

She tried to lighten the blame game:

“It was a mistake, she understands it was a mistake,” Lightfoot said.
…
Rather than firing the staffer, Lightfoot said it will be a teaching moment for her campaign….

However.

The staffer was operating directly within the parameters Lightfoot, as the MFWIC of that operation, already had set up. Lightfoot didn’t even acknowledge her own role in the mistake; she laid the whole thing off on the young woman.

Lightfoot’s procedure is simply to duck all responsibility and toss the staffer, who’s in no position to defend herself from her boss’ accusation, under the Mayoral bus. With Lightfoot at the controls.

“violent extremist views”

Posted on by
Reply

Here is the cowardice and the bigotry of the Los Angeles Police Department management coterie. That crowd has banned the Thin Blue Line flag from being displayed in any of the department’s public areas. Never mind that that flag symbolizes support for the policemen and policewomen who are in the streets on their beats protecting the rest of us.

LAPD Chief Michel Moore defended the controversial move in an email sent to Fox News Digital, saying, “Yesterday, we received a community complaint of the presence of a Blue Line Flag” with “the view that it symbolized support for violent extremist views, such as those represented by the Proud Boys and others.”

Then Moore actually acknowledged the…bizarreness…of his move; although he doesn’t seem to recognize it.

It’s unfortunate that extremist groups have hijacked the use of the “Thin Blue Line flag” to symbolize their undemocratic, racist, and bigoted views.

But he banned the flag, anyway, instead of defending the meaning and rejecting the extremist groups‘ hijack.

The police union demurred from Moore’s move. The Los Angeles Police Protective League Board of Directors wrote in part,

It is difficult to express the level of utter disgust and disappointment with Chief Moore’s politically pandering directive to remove Thin Blue Line flags and memorials for fallen officers from all public areas within our police stations. This direction came as a result of complaints from anti-police, criminal apologists, and activists who hold too much sway over our city leaders and, unfortunately, our Chief[.]

Naked, bare-faced pandering, true enough. I think, though, it’s far worse than that: it’s cowardice and rank bigotry.

It’s cowardice because Moore and his management group caved promptly and cravenly to, in Moore’s own words, a collection of undemocratic, racist, and bigoted extremists.

It’s rank bigotry because Moore and his fellows in management carefully, consciously disregarded the violent extremism his flag ban inflicts on us average Americans who do respect the police and wish to show that respect with the Thin Blue Line flag, especially in police department public areas; it inflicts that same violent extremism on the police themselves by barring their own public display; and it favors the views of violent extremists like BLM, antifa, and other undemocratic, racist, and bigoted groups over the views of honest Americans and our cops.

Lies of the President?

Posted on by
Reply

President Joe Biden (D) claimed, as a result of the latest inflation report, that food prices are falling.

The BLS, however, actually said this:

The food index increased 0.3 percent over the month [of December] with the food at home index rising 0.2 percent[.]

And this:

BLS data shows the “food at home” index rose 0.2% in December and 11.8% in the past year. Food away from home rose 0.4% in December and 8.3% in the last year.
“The index for cereals and bakery products rose 16.1 percent over the year. The remaining major grocery store food groups posted increases ranging from 7.7 percent (meats, poultry, fish, and eggs) to 15.3 percent (dairy and related products)[.]”

And this:

Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs rose 1% in December and 7.7% in the last year. Dairy and related products prices declined 0.3% in December but rose 15.3% in the last year. Fruits and vegetable prices declined 0.6% in December but rose 8.4% in the last year. Nonalcoholic beverages and beverage materials prices rose 0.1% in December and 12.4% in the last year. BLS’ “other food at home” category saw a 0.4% increase in December and a 13.9% increase in the last year.

When that flood of data came out, Biden reclamaed, and acknowledged in a speech Thursday that food prices did rise in December, but lauded the slower increase.

Oops.

Some will insist that the dichotomy between Biden’s initial claim and reality is further evidence of his decline. Politicians of the Progressive-Democratic Party and their Leftist supporters will insist he’s in full possession of his faculties (perhaps harkening back to his faculty status at UPENN [/snark]).

Taking the Progressive-Democrats and the Left at their word, though, would mean that Biden is openly lying about food inflation.

Go figure.

The Federal Judge is Right

Posted on by
Reply

Federal Judge Joseph Goodwin of the Southern District of West Virginia has upheld West Virginia’s law barring transgender student athletes from competing in girls’ and women’s sports, even from playing on girls’ and women’s teams. Goodwin

found that West Virginia’s definition of “biological sex” for school sports is “substantially related to its important interest in providing equal athletic opportunities for females.”

Goodwin further ruled that

the law was designed to “prevent transgender girls from playing on girl’s sports teams,” but said this was legally permissible if there was a substantial government interest in doing so.

The State’s government most assuredly has that interest. After all, as Goodwin also wrote,

While some females may be able to outperform some males, it is generally accepted that, on average, males outperform females athletically because of inherent physical differences between the sexes. This is not an overbroad generalization, but rather a general principle that realistically reflects the average physical differences between the sexes.
…there is much debate over whether and to what extent hormone therapies after puberty can reduce a transgender girl’s athletic advantage over cisgender girls. …
The fact is, however, that a transgender girl is biologically male and, barring medical intervention, would undergo male puberty like other biological males. And biological males generally outperform females athletically. The state is permitted to legislate sports rules on this basis because sex, and the physical characteristics that flow from it, are substantially related to athletic performance and fairness in sports[.]

Biological men—which is what they are, from the bottom of their DNA and XY chromosomes on up through their stronger muscles and larger bones (which actually began their development differing from women development in the womb)—regardless of how they might self-identify or how much hormone therapy or gender surgery they might have gone through, have no business competing against women in sports. That denies the women contestants their own opportunities for recognition and financial aid.

Sports, too, are the path out of poverty-ridden neighborhoods for girls and young women just as it is for lots of young men; this path would be denied them by transgendered men competing against them.

Biological men, however transgendered, by competing against women in sports erases women, their very womanhood, in sports.

There is a Title IX case, using the transgendereds’ logic that the law’s specification of sex is broader than biology, for sports programs to create Transgender Athletic Associations/Conferences/Leagues for transgender athletes to compete in. They should make that case. Better, though, would be for Congress to update Title IX to the current state of medical technology and mandate explicitly transgender athletic programs.

Goodwin’s ruling can be read here.