Month: July 2008

Not If But When

By Patrick Appel
National Review wants Stevens gone:

The question is not whether Stevens should resign, but whether he should resign now or after Alaska’s August 26 primary. If he steps aside now, the nomination will go to one of the six relatively unknown Republicans who are registered to run in the primary. The deadline for registration has passed, so it is too late for the party to field a stronger contender. If, however, Stevens won the primary and then stepped aside, the party could replace him with a better candidate.

Nanny-State Watch

by Chris Bodenner
The city of Los Angeles just banned the construction of fast-food restaurants in low-income areas.  (Perhaps gov’t officials saw the study Patrick linked to yesterday.)  Ezra writes:

The policy actually sounds stranger than it is: Cities frequently bar the construction of new bars, nightclubs, music joints, and so forth. Zoning based on lifestyle concerns is fairly common. But it’s rare — and possibly unheard of — to discriminate against a certain kind of restaurant based on health concerns. The fast food industry, for their part, makes a fair point. They’re not keeping anyone out. "Sit-down restaurants don’t want to go in," said their spokesperson. "If they did, they’d be there. This moratorium isn’t going to help them relocate." But possibly the city can offer incentives that will change the calculus a bit. We’ll see.

Hewitt Award Nominee

By Patrick Appel
"The Democratic Party, in its quest for power, has managed a propaganda campaign with subliminal messages, creating a God-like figure in a man who falls short in every way. It seems to me that if Mr. Obama wins the presidential election, then Messrs. Farrakhan, Wright, Ayers and Pfleger will gain power for their need to demoralize this country and help create a socialist America." –Jon Voight.

Dissent Of The Day

by Chris Bodenner
Responding to my post that said 74% of women don’t want abortion banned, a reader writes:

Actually, according to that poll, 61% of women believe abortion should be less available than it is now, which would imply that a majority of women are at least somewhat respectful of the rights of the unborn. And I’m rather certain that perhaps 90% of women are more respectful of said rights than Senator Obama, for whom no abortion is distasteful –- even those that occur in the open air following an induced birth and unsuccessful first try.

The poll’s three options were "Generally available" (37%), "Available, but stricter limits than now" (37%), and "Not permitted" (24%).  I added the first two, while the reader added the second two.  So I’m accurate to write that 74% of those women are pro-choice.  McCain said, "The majority of women in America, in my view, respect the rights of the unborn."  At first glance, McCain seems to be imply that most women are pro-life.  But yes, his word choice does leave room for interpretation.

However, when parsing McCain’s words, I came to realize fetuses can’t have "rights," only a right — to live or not.  In other words, fetuses either have a right to be born (pro-life) or no right to be born against a mother’s wishes (pro-choice).  Women, on the other hand, have a spectrum of possible "rights" — a right to abort, or not, during the 1st trimester, 2nd trimester, or 3rd trimester, under a variety of scenarios.  McCain, as a moderate pro-lifer, holds exceptions for rape and incest.  But those things don’t effect the fetus, only the woman.  (Unless the incest leads to prenatal malformation.  But if that scenario is grounds for abortion, is non-incest malformation as well?)

Lastly, for the record: Someone like Obama can believe partial-birth abortion is "distasteful" — even sad, horrific — and still believe a doctor should have the right to perform one in order to save the life or health of the mother.  "Pro-choice" doesn’t mean you like dead fetuses. [Reader was referring to the procedure pertaining to the Induced Infant Liability Act, which goes beyond partial-birth abortion and which Obama apparently opposed]