Dehumanizing Babies

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.

It’s a Step

South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem (R) has signed an Executive Order barring the State from doing business with six enemy nations. She’s also pushing legislation to codify that and to block the People’s Republic of China from buying South Dakota agricultural land.

It’s a start, but there’s a critical following step that the State needs to take, and it’s a step that all other States need to take, also. That is to use the State’s constitutional eminent domain authority to seize the lands and other properties the PRC already has bought and commit them to the State citizens’ public use.

It would be good if the Federal government used its Constitutional authority to do the same, but I have no confidence the Biden administration has the…will…to do so.

Whining Mayor Whines Again

New York City Mayor Eric “Squeaky” Adams (D) is crying now that his sanctuary city, a status of which he claims to be proud, is nearing its breaking point and there is no more room in New York. All because the city of 8.8 million has had an “influx” of 41,000 illegal aliens over the last nine or so months.

41,000. The Del Rio sector of the US-Mexico border, of which Eagle Pass, TX—population 28 thousand—is the primary border-crossing region, had more than 51,000 illegal aliens entering in December 2022 alone.

Adams needs to stop his cry-baby act; he’s embarrassing New Yorkers, if not himself. If he doesn’t want to handle his trickle of illegal aliens, his first step should be to end the city’s sanctuary status.

Harassment or Intelligence Gathering?

The People’s Republic of China once again sent PLAAF aircraft into the Republic of China’s ADIZ without, quite, penetrating RoC airspace, and it sent PLAN warships across the midline of the Taiwan Strait without, quite, penetrating RoC waters. The PRC has done this sort of thing almost daily over the last three weeks.

The PRC’s penetrations and surrounding of the RoC in the days after then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D, CA) visit to the RoC last August can be viewed as temper tantrum and retaliation for Pelosi’s visit. That rationale no longer applies, these days.

What is the PRC after, then? One reason is simply harassment and attempted intimidation of the RoC, an overt attempt to cow the nation into accepting PRC occupation and control.

Another reason, though, is to gather intelligence on RoC military and political capabilities. Military intelligence would include data on when the RoC detects the penetrations at each of the various points where those penetrations have occurred: detection range varies with terrain, weather, personnel alertness, and so on. Other data include time to react given a detection, what the reaction is, and with what—whether with surveillance resources—ground, sea- and/or aircraft—or with combat ships and aircraft, and the circumstances under which each type is used.

Political intel data would center on the RoC government’s response, the relative strengths of the currentl governing and opposition parties and how those relative strengths might be evolving (keeping in mind that RoC President Tsai Ing-wen’s governing party has recently lost a couple of key city elections), and the RoC population’s response to the government’s actions and whether that response is changing or remaining relatively stable.

And one more possibility: constant penetrations, to a depth, intended to lull the RoC government and military—especially the latter’s line formations—into a measure of complacency: “this is just another irritating move, no big deal” until the PRC’s forces apparently conducting another irritation, that time keeps coming in a full-blown invasion. Via the routes where the detections were the latest and/or the reactions were already the slowest.

Or the rationale is some combination of those three.

In any event, PRC behavior toward the RoC emphasizes the need for the US to step up the pace of arms transfers and the amounts of arms transferred to the RoC. The US, Japan, and Australia, individually and as a group, need to conduct joint combined arms exercises with the RoC military. The US, Japan, and Australia, individually and as a group, also need to step up the pace of combat ship sailings through the Taiwan Strait and around the island. These sailings also need to include combat ships sailing around the South China Sea islands which the PRC has seized and occupied, going as close as navigably safe in the process. The US, Japan, and Australia, individually and as a group, also need to conduct overflights of those islands with both surveillance and combat aircraft. The US, Japan, and Australia, individually and as a group, also need to conduct “escort and observation” operations near all PLAN military vessels sailing the South and East China Seas and the Taiwan Strait on the RoC side of the midline and to fly similar operations near PLAAF aircraft in the RoC ADIZ.

Who are these Austrians?

And why do we waste any more time supporting them, for instance via the OECD and OSCE?

In William Nattrass’ op-ed in Friday’s Wall Street Journal centered on Poland’s functional ascension to European leadership regarding the barbarian Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, he cited a couple of remarks by Austria’s Foreign Minister, Alexander Schallenberg.

Mr Schallenberg had claimed Europe’s “security architecture will have to take Russia into account in future”….

Certainly, since, contra Putin, Russia’s existence isn’t at stake. But with a Ukrainian decisive victory, that future would include a less capable-of-threat Russia.

Schallenberg also was upset that Poland had successfully blocked Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s attendance at a recent OECD meeting.

Mr Schallenberg said Mr Lavrov’s presence would have provided a rare chance for Western politicians to communicate their criticisms directly to the Kremlin.

This is just breathtakingly stupid. It’s almost like Schallenberg doesn’t understand that Russia and Western nations have exchanged embassies.