Friday, October 14, 2005

Confusion Regarding Roe v. Wade

While I don't generally agree with Cokie and Steve Roberts' opinions as outlined in their regular column, I have in the past found their commentary to be interesting, and occasionally insightful. That makes their recent column (link will come when I can find it online) all the more incredible to me. In the title and in the final paragraphs of their column, the Roberts' seem to be making a breathtakingly uninformed assertion: that overturning the Roe vs. Wade decision that prevented state and local governments from making abortion illegal could be accurately described as "legislating from the bench".

Overturning Roe vs. Wade would not, in and of itself, make abortion illegal. The effect of that 1973 decision was to prevent the Federal and state legislatures from passing laws that outlawed or restricted abortions. Overturning it would simply return to the state legislatures (and the people they represent) the authority to determine the legality of abortions in their jurisdiction. It would not be even remotely equivalent to the Supreme Court decreeing that abortion must be illegal (which WOULD be "legislating from the bench"). I find it hard to believe that the Roberts' are actually unaware of this fact, but multiple re-readings of their column seem to leave no other interpretation.

The Roberts' admit in their column that "flawed legal reasoning" was used to create the right to legal abortions. How correcting that admitted mistake made by the Supreme Court over 30 years ago and returning to the legislatures a power that the Constitution always intended them to have could be considered "legislating from the bench", I truly have no idea. The Roberts' also imply that today's America does not support making abortion illegal. If that's really the case, then they would have nothing to fear from a reversal, as no state legislature would vote to restrict abortion over the objections of its constituency.

I believe it bears repeating that overturning Roe vs. Wade today would NOT make abortion illegal. It would simply make the Supreme Court mute on the legality of abortion, as they are Constitutionally required to be. No thoughtful person could characterize that as "legislating from the bench". Inaccurate information like that promulgated in the Roberts' column does the country a great disservice, by confusing the situation and preventing a clear debate on the subject.

Friday, February 25, 2005

Global Warming, Schmobal Warming

In case you're one of the few who haven't figured it out yet, global warming (and all the terrible things that are alleged to happen along with it) is a giant hoax. The average global temperature is not rising any faster than it has in the past. The current warming trend extends back nearly 6,000 years, and is a result of the earth's exit from a "mini ice-age" that ended then. More importantly, try as they might, the eco-terrorists have completely failed to show any correlation between human activity and changes in temperature. None.

These people's lives, purpose, and most importantly, funding, are all wrapped up in there being a crisis. No crisis, no funding. No crisis, and they have to start over on what they will do with their lives. No wonder they cling so tenaciously to such an obviously invalid theory.

If you haven't read Michael Crichton's "State of Fear", you should definitely do so. Its a novel, but it was written as the result of over 3 years of research that the author meticulously documents in footnotes and a complete bibliography. It clearly shows the global warming "crisis" to be exactly what it is: a fundraiser for radical eco-terrorist organizations.

Friday, February 11, 2005

The Hits Just Keep on Coming!

Wow. What a great start to a second term. President Bush and the conservatives have really racked up a number of big victories over the last weeks and months. Consider:

1) Super successful elections in Iraq. No one predicted that they would go as well as they did. The Iraqis are showing the world that they really want to take control of their country.

2) Federal legislation to control outrageous class action lawsuits easily passed the Senate yesterday. The House will pass it easily as well, and Bush will sign it. The legislation is intended to put an end to the regular "shake-down" of large businesses perpetrated often by venue-shopping trial attorneys who almost always come away from the suit with a lot more money in their pocket than the supposed "plaintiffs" receive.

3) The House of Representatives has passed immigration legislation that was left out of the intelligence reform bill passed recently that will provide uniform standards for the issuance of driver's licenses and will allow the federal government to build a fence along the border with Mexico. The first priority for Homeland Defense has to be getting control of our borders and illegal immigration.

4) And in my own home state of Georgia, both the state Senate and the state House have passed tort reform legislation to limit the amount of non-economic damages awarded in medical liability lawsuits. The bills will be reconciled and sent to the governor for a signature, which he'll provide.

Next up, saving Social Security. Its a great time to be an American...

Thursday, February 10, 2005

2018 Is the Date To Watch

In 2018, the money being paid in to the Social Security program by workers is projected to fall below the amount of money being paid out of the Social Security program to retirees. "No problem.", some say, "We'll just draw on the current Social Security surplus to make up the difference."

Well, its true that there's currently a surplus in the Social Security program on paper, but that's all it is: paper. The "surplus" is entirely in the form of IOUs from the U.S. government. There is NO stack of money sitting somewhere labeled "Social Security Surplus". That money has been spent. When 2018 rolls around, and we try to draw from the "surplus", those IOUs will have to be paid off to do so. How will we pay off the IOUs? Raising taxes or cutting benefits. There's no other way.

The 2042 date is meaningless, because that's the date the money represented by those IOUs would run out. It ignores how we'll get the money to pay off those IOUs.

This is a crisis of epic proportions. We need to get this fixed, and we need to fix it NOW.

Wednesday, February 02, 2005

State of the Union Commercials

Very interesting commercials aired just following the State of the Union address on Fox News. They both turn out to be by the same organization. The first directs viewers to to get information on stopping ridiculous lawsuits coming down the pike against food retailers and producers. The second ad identified PETA as the domestic terror cell that it is, and invited viewers to visit to sign a petition to revoke PETA's tax exempt status. Both are projects of the people, and both deserve a thorough viewing.

Fantastic State of the Union Address

Incredible! What a wonderful address given by a very confident president. 150 federal agencies and programs cut or eliminated. Nirvana. The energy bill. The massive success in Iraq this past weekend. And the looming domestic fight, Social Security reform. This was a great speech.