"... we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be."

That's from a paper by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva published about a year ago in the Journal of Medical Ethicists entitled “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” It's also apparently the belief of at least the Florida chapter of Planned Parenthood.

Here's an exchange between State Rep. Jim Boyd the lobbyist for Planned Parenthood during a discussion in a committee of the Florida Legislature on a bill that would have required medical care to be given to a baby in the case of a botched abortion:

“So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief,” said Rep. Jim Boyd. “If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?”

“We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician,” said Planned Parenthood lobbyist Snow.

So the answer to the question, "should we kill an infant that is living and struggling to breath that is outside the womb is "Yes." Just so long as everyone agrees it's okay.

Read the rest of this sorry story here.

The Triumph of the Will: First they came for the bathrooms ...

The slowly heating cultural water is approaching a boil and still the frogs haven't noticed.

Here's Time Magazine on the new frontier in gay rights:

What do you call it when a person enters a bathroom but the sign outside doesn’t match the sex listed on his or her birth certificate? Disorderly conduct, according to a bill offered earlier this month by Arizona state Rep. John Kavanagh. But the measure sparked outrage in the LGBT community, which saw discrimination against transgender citizens. Kavanagh responded with a revamped, more limited version, which protects businesses that bar such practices from civil or criminal liability. After a contentious seven-hour hearing on Wednesday dominated by opposition to the proposal, a House panel voted along party lines to approve it.

Apparently the next step in the gay rights agenda is letting people decide what sex they are, regardless of what it actually is. This is the logical outcome of the exotic idea that has been propounded by "scholars" in "gender studies" that sex and gender are not the same thing.

But it doesn't stop at bathrooms:

A Democrat-backed California proposal would allow students to take part in sex-segregated school programs based on their gender identity, irrespective of the sex on their records. So, a student born male but who identifies as female could play on the girls’ tennis team and use the girls’ locker room.

Coming soon to a school near you: Deciding what race you are regardless of what it actually is.

Separating the conservative men from the libertarian boys on the marriage issue

The rate at which conservative leaders are abandoning their principles on the marriage issue is astounding—and instructive. David Frum, Karl Rove, Sen. Rob Portman—the list goes on. In politics, as in physiology, there is clotting mechanism that eventually slows such things, but there is definitely a realignment in progress, and this realignment is separating the conservative men from the libertarian boys.

It is hard to determine how many of these people are really abandoning their principles and how many of them never really held the principles they claimed to hold in the first place. It may sound uncharitable to limit the possibilities to only these two, but it is hard to justify any other explanation.

The timing alone is evidence for the charge of political opportunism. When someone changes his  mind on an issue when it is not popular to do so, we are much more likely to believe that it was a real change of heart. But when it is done at a time that makes it the politically convenient thing to do, we should be suspicious.

To defect to the other side in battle when the battle is going your way may indicate that you really think that you are on the wrong side. But to do it when the enemy is winning on all fronts is prima facie evidence of lack of original commitment--if not sheer cowardice. We'll go with the former. 

Remember, we're trying to be charitable.

George Washington is said to have been disgusted at the lack of fortitude of his troops early in the Revolutionary War because of their penchant for fleeing at the least hint of opposition. The conservative movement is now having the opposite problem: Right now conservative troops are being trampled by their own officers who, having abandoned their posts in the culture war, are running as fast as they can from the front.

When it comes to the Roves of the movement, it seems pretty clear that they never held any other principles than political opportunism.

In the case of the Frums, we are looking at people who have principles, just not the ones they once pretended to have. There was little to prevent them from turning tail and running in the first place. They are libertarians. They're just reverting to ideological equilibrium. They are like conscript troops from conquered territory: Once the balance of power shifts back the other way, their native loyalties reassert themselves--the aggravating factor, of course, being that the Roves and Frums were not conscripts: They were volunteers.

They were never conservatives to begin with. And it would have been nice to know before the shooting started.

In which I respond to Kathy Stein calling me a liar on the Senate floor

Isn't there some rule about calling someone a liar and misrepresenting the truth in doing it?

The Governor's veto of the Religious Freedom Act, HB 279, was overridden tonight by both chambers of the General Assembly. A number of interesting arguments were made by the opposition, among which were that it was a secret plot to overturn the 2004 Marriage Amendment (Kelly Flood), and that it would cost too much to defend (by the not-so-fiscally conservative Mary Lou Marzian).

Then there was Sen. Morgan McGarvey, who made what seemed to me a serious and well-intentioned attempt to address the legal issues, but got a few of them wrong anyway. It would have been good if he had taken these up at the committee meeting where they could have been discussed.

But perhaps the most interesting comment of the night (to me anyway) was when Kathy Stein took the Senate floor to oppose the veto override and accused me of "bearing false witness." That's King James English, folks, for lying.

Maybe we should just be glad that she's read the King James Bible.

In any case, she said the sponsor and supporters had claimed that the bill had nothing to do with local gay rights ordinances, but that I had "let my hand slip" (a metaphor in the same category as "that train has set sail") by admitting that it really was about gay rights ordinances: "He comes right out and says that this is about gay rights."

Stein then waved my March 21 press release in the air. There it was, in eleven point type, for everyone in the chamber to see.

What the press release in her hand actually said was that the opposition of gay rights groups to the Religious Freedom Act (not the bill itself) could doom gay rights ordinances because the opposition of these groups to the bill would be taken (I think rightly) as an indication that these ordinances would be used to threaten to religious freedom. Why else would a higher standard of religious freedom hamper these ordinances?

It also cited a case in Lexington in which a T-shirt company was charged with violating the city's gay rights ordinance because it refused to print a T-shirt for a gay rights event because it was in conflict with the owner's religious beliefs. But that is not a problem with the gay rights ordinance; it is a problem with the misapplication of the gay rights ordinance. The ordinance prohibits discrimination against gay persons. But the company didn't do that. It didn't have anything to do with a gay person. It had only to do with the message it was being asked to print.

That misuse of the ordinance was a violation of someone's religious freedom. In fact, it was gay rights groups who said these ordinances wouldn't threaten people's religious freedom--the same ones who are now persecuting the T-shirt company for the owner's religious beliefs.

What was that about bearing false witness?

If you roll the tape back, you will see very clearly that it was the ACLU and the Fairness Alliance who did their best to make this into a gay rights issue. It was these groups these groups who set up the religious freedom vs. gay rights dichotomy,  not me. They put religious people around the Commonwealth on notice that their freedoms could not be allowed to stand in the way of the Tolerance and Diversity agenda.

Again, the opponents of the bill did this through their own rhetoric: It had little to do with the bill. In fact, Sen. Stein did her best to contribute to this narrative. Then she goes and blames me for it?

My only contribution was to point out that, in pitting gay rights against religious freedom, they (not the bill) were threatening their cause.

So, Senator, tell me where I lied. Maybe you just made a mistake--and let your hand slip.

NEWS: State House overrides Governor's veto of Religious Freedom Act

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

March 26, 2013

LEXINGTON, KY--The Family Foundation tonight said that the vote to override Gov. Steve Beshear's veto of the Religious Freedom Act by the Kentucky House of Representatives was not only a victory for religious freedom in the state, but "a referendum on the fraudulent claims of the ACLU and the Fairness Alliance. The least we should expect about a debate as important as this one is that a bill be accurately portrayed."

"First we were told that if we believed in traditional marriage we were bigots. Now there are people saying that it is bigoted to believe in religious freedom. The list of things religious people are told are unacceptable seems to grow longer by the day."

Cothran said that opponents repeatedly misrepresented the nature of the bill. "The ACLU and the Fairness Alliance, along with a compliant liberal media, distorted this bill beyond recognition. The magnitude of this vote should send a message to these groups that this kind of deception is not appreciated by the majority of the state's elected lawmakers."

Cothran said the bill merely reinstituted the long-standing standard of religious protection the Kentucky Supreme Court abandoned in October of last year. Despite being well aware of this, he said, these groups decided to portray as some kind of threat to civil rights. Despite being unable to cite a single instance of any civil right being threatened during the many years the standard this bill reimposes was in effect, he said, they were able to convince a handful of lawmakers that the bill was a dangerous bill.

"We hope the opponents of HB 279 will do a gut check and realize that lies and distortions don't always work."

###

The media's Troubled Relationship with the Facts: Kentucky media taking the low road in religious freedom debate

For the most part, members of the press corp in this state are honest, decent, well-intentioned people. They work hard, follow the law, and don't kick their dog. Most of their work displays these same standards. In general, they try to be accurate and truthful in their reporting.

But when it comes to issues that might have anything to do with gay rights, there are a few who simply abandon all journalistic integrity. They transform themselves from professional reporters into journalistic hacks. Their ideology seizes control of the part of their brains which houses the faint memory of the journalistic code of ethics they learned in school and just starts deleting things.

Things like basic honesty.

Not only that, but the standards they apply in every other part of their work are sacrificed to their liberal politics. The gods of Tolerance and Diversity are jealous gods, and they brook no interference from the things like truth and accuracy.

In the debate over HB 279, the Religious Freedom Act, certain sectors of the media just simply had a professional meltdown. They mis-portrayed the bill—which was vetoed by the Governor and is now in the hands of the State House—lied about its ramifications, and basically just punted on their journalistic responsibilities—all because the ACLU and a loose axis of gay rights groups basically just made stuff up.

I expect those groups to distort the truth. They do it all the time. For them, it seems a daily ritual. But those in the journalistic profession are supposed to be better than that.

When it came to that the issue actually was, some journalists just parroted the Fairness Alliance's press releases: "The bill," said Philip Bailey of WFPL, UofL's public radio affiliate, "would have allowed Kentuckians to ignore laws or regulations that violated their faith."

Huh? This is the claim of the ACLU and the Fairness Alliance. But a responsible journalist doesn't just take the talking points of one side and simply repeat them: He attributes the position to one side and then goes and gets the opinion of the other side. And in neither case does he simply state the claim of one side as the whole truth.

To be fair to Bailey, he did begin calling me and including my quotations later in the game. And he apparently was not getting my press releases, so he at least has some excuse for framing the issue they way he did.

But then we have Joe Gerth, a reporter with the LouisvilleCourier-Journal, whose editorial in today's CJ could be considered a paradigm case of inaccuracy and mis-portrayal. Because Joe is writing an editorial and not a news story, he obviously has more leeway in expressing his opinion. But that doesn't get him off on the issue of accuracy.

Now Joe's a good guy, which makes his article that much more disappointing.

Joe too simply suspends his basic journalistic standards and accepts the claims of one side (the side he clearly sympathizes with). Here's Joe, doing is best imitation of a Fairness Alliance press release:

See, the bill allows folks to ignore laws that run counter to their deeply held religious beliefs.

Oh, C'mon. It does no such thing. Either Joe knows this, in which case he's knowingly stating a falsehood, or he doesn't know it, in which case he doesn't need to be writing an editorial on the issue for the state's largest newspaper.

HB 279 simply re-installs the standard of "strict scrutiny" in religious freedom cases that prevailed universally in this country from 1938 to 1990, and which applied at both the federal and state level once again after the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in 1993. In 1997 the court, defending the Smith decision of 1990, struck RFRA down as it applies to the states, but left it intact at the federal level, where it still applies today. This standard applied de facto in Kentucky until October 25 of last year, when the Kentucky Supreme Court announced that the lower stand was henceforth in place in state cases.

If Joe really believes this preposterous statement, then he should give some evidence for its truth.

He could start by explaining how a standard that involves the government having to have a compelling interest in infringing on the right of religious exercise and requiring the government to use the least restrictive means to further the purpose of the law (which is what it would have to do under strict scrutiny) would result in the universal right of people with "deeply held religious beliefs" to ignore the law.

He could also cite cases when strict scrutiny was in force—which is most of the time in most states over the last 75 years—people were able to do this. Where are they?

After Joe claims that a person could be a "pot-smoking, snake-handling, polygamist" and be free to be so if HB 279 is passed, he says:

And, under Kentucky law, snake handling, pot smoking and multiple wife marrying are illegal.

I know what you’re saying. 

You’re saying, “Joe, there is no religion out there that believes in pot-smoking, snake-handling and polygamy.”

No, that's not what I'm saying Joe. I'm saying that the assumption you're making in order to make this statement is completely false. It doesn't follow legally from what the law says and you have no evidence for it.

None.

I'm saying that the statement you make from which everything else in your article follows—that people can simply ignore laws that don't coincide with their deeply held religious beliefs under the strict scrutiny standard—is an ignorant statement.

It's beneath the dignity of a journalist to make it. Period. You shouldn't make it any more, and you should issue a correction for having made it the first time.

For one thing, what Joe apparently doesn't know (should we start making a list?) is that laws against snake handling were upheld in Lawson v. Commonwealth, a 1942 ruling of the Kentucky Supreme Court, a ruling which states, among other things that:

... the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom does not permit the practice of religious rites dangerous or detrimental to the lives, safety or health of the participants or to the public.

Nothing in HB 279 changes this.

And polygamy? Has Joe noticed that polygamy laws have never been overturned under the very strict scrutiny standard he thinks is going to bring about some legal Armageddon?

Among other things Joe clearly hasn't read is Gingrich, Yoder, and Zook v. the Commonwealth, the case last year that lowered the standard of scrutiny in religious freedom cases in Kentucky from "strict scrutiny" to "rational basis." Among the many other things the justices said, here is one of the more important ones:

As both our state and federal law have long held, then, government can act to restrict the free exercise of religion when that exercise is detrimental to the common good. But given the certain terms of the Kentucky and federal constitutions regarding interference with religious practice, there must be a burden the government meets before it can do so. Whether the governmental regulation is subject to a heightened level of review or whether it must merely meet a rational governmental purpose is determined by the action the government takes, why it is taking it, and how much the act restricts religious practice. [emphasis added]

In other words, whether the standard is rational basis (as it is now, since last October 25) or the strict scrutiny standard (as HB 279 would have it and as it was before last October 25), government can still restrict the free exercise of religion. The only difference is the standard the government must meet. And as the strict scrutiny standard has been applied by courts, the differences are not all that great.

Which is why the opponents of HB 279 have a hard time finding any cases exemplifying the parade of horrors they claim will ensue if HB 279 is passed—and why it is simply ludicrous to say that "the bill allows folks to ignore laws that run counter to their deeply held religious beliefs."

Joe's article shows no evidence he is even familiar with the concepts of rational basis or strict scrutiny, compelling interest or least restrictive means. No need to complicate things with the facts.

If you want to see a responsible handling of the issue, you ought to go to Peter Smith's article in the same newspaper just the day before. Peter has actually, oh I don't know, taken reality into account. And he didn't just blindly accept the claims of the ACLU and the Fairness Alliance.

Imagine that.

UPDATE: Phil Bailey has told me that he did not get the expression I attributed to him above from the ACLU or the Fairness Alliance, but that it was based on communications he received from a supporter of HB 279. After going back to check the link, I also noticed (although Phil didn't mention it) that the story I linked to was not apparently written by Phil, but by Joseph Lord. 

An Equal Right to be Sexually Vulnerable: How liberals brought about the sexual assault crisis in the military and why they should stop blaming other people for it

The response by liberals to my article on the sexual assault crisis in the military is quite humorous. They apparently don't get satire at all. It should be a hint that a post is satirical when the writer is a conservative and he's writing as if he were a liberal.

Satire, of course, is a literary technique with a long history. But apparently these are mostly publikly skooled people who don't have a great familiarity with literature, and aren't too versed in history either.

Let's just call them poetically challenged.

So let's see if we can bring this point down to its most simple, basic level so we don't confuse them.

Here's the point: Because liberal ideology holds that men and women are fundamentally equal, they put women in military positions which only men occupied before--positions in which men are not vulnerable, but in which women are. The positions in which they are particularly vulnerable are those in which women are being supervised by men. Then, when sexual assault skyrockets as a result, they all of a sudden begin ringing alarm bells and asking how all this could have happened.

Well, duh.

Because they can't let go of their egalitarian fantasy, they just don't get the idea that women can be vulnerable in places where men are not.

Then, instead of admitting that they have victimized women by their own policies, they try to indict, well, they're not exactly sure. Somehow males in general are culpable. Particularly the ones in the military. They've figured that much out: Since it is males who have sexually assaulted females, males are to blame.

It's sort of like the comic Peter Cook, who once said that he had figured out who had committed a series of thefts: thieves.

But that's as far as their thinking goes. Unfortunately that's not enough to constitute an acceptable scapegoat.

But wait. There there is someone we can blame: the people who warned against the policies in the first place! Instead of admitting they screwed up, they go and blame the people (like me) who warned against the very policies that put women into these vulnerable positions. We are the ones who are callous when it comes to sexual assault, even though we were the ones who said that it wasn't going to work!

Those of us who pointed out that men and women are not equal in the ways liberals want to think they are equal are the ones at fault for the policies that assume that they are! The conservatives who said "Don't do this" are the ones who get blamed for the consequences that ensue when the liberals, in disregard of this advice, do it anyway.

We are to blame because we have had the temerity to point out how their own insipid ideology brought about the crisis. And when you satirize them for doing what they have done, they scratch their heads dumbly, squint at the type on the page in utter incomprehension, and then, unable to understand your point, they point their finger at you and say you're insensitive.

When liberals lament the fact that women have been victimized by the very vulnerability liberals created for them, they have given up the right to complain about it. They should stop complaining about it because they helped bring it about. Instead of complaining, they should apologize.

But they won't apologize--and they won't change their policies either. They will continue to put women in vulnerable positions. In fact, they'll make it worse by placing them in combat situations. And the problem of sexual assault by the enemy (if they engage in actual combat) will then be added to the problem of sexual assault by their male colleagues.

And then, of course, they'll blame us for it. Just watch.

NEWS: "ACLU calling the shots in the Governor's office," says group

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 22, 2013

LEXINGTON, KY—"It won't be comforting for many Kentuckians to know that the ACLU is now calling the shots in the Governor's office," said Martin Cothran, spokesman for The Family Foundation, in response to Gov. Steve Beshear's veto of HB 279, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

"This puts churches around the Commonwealth of Kentucky on notice that the First Amendment religious freedoms they thought their government respected may now be negotiable. We just hope elected lawmakers in the Legislature will act quickly to correct the Governor's action. We think they will."

Cothran said that the opposition to religious freedom by the ACLU and gay rights groups like the Fairness Alliance was a dangerous development. "The message of these groups, which used to be restricted to advocacy for basic civil rights protections, has metastasized into loud and open opposition to religious freedom. This is a dangerous development."

"Religious people should not have to ask permission from the ACLU and gay rights groups to believe what they believe," said Cothran.

###

NEWS: Group says opposition to religious freedom could doom gay rights ordinances

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

March 21, 2013

LEXINGTON, KY—A group supporting the Religious Freedom Act said today that the opposition of groups like the ACLU and the Fairness Alliance to HB 279 signaled a "new level of intolerance toward religion" that would provide opponents of local gay rights ordinances with a new reason to oppose them.

"These groups have now made it clear that they will not let First Amendment religious protections stand in the way of their efforts to force others to submit to their political agenda," said Martin Cothran, spokesman for The Family Foundation. "These groups, which have formerly operated under the banner of tolerance, are now displaying a breathtaking level of hostility to basic constitutional protections."

Cothran said that the opposition of these groups to a fairly mainstream piece of religious freedom legislation like HB 279 "signals a new level of religious intolerance in this state that will require a more organized effort on the part of churches and others to oppose these ordinances in the future."

"The effort to veto this bill confirms our worst fears about the implications of these ordinances." Cothran cited the case of a Lexington T-shirt company that was charged with violating a Lexington "fairness" ordinance because its religious owner refused to print T-shirts promoting a gay rights event. "Even though the law says only that discrimination against gay people is prohibited, it is being used to force religious business owners to promote causes they disagree with."

###

Gay rights groups come out of the closet for religious discrimination

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

March 20, 2013

LEXINGTON, KY—"Gay rights groups in this state have now come out of the closet on their opposition to religious freedom," said a spokesman for The Family Foundation after Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer sent a letter to Gov. Steve Beshear calling on him to veto HB 279, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The ACLU and the Fairness Alliance have been encouraging public officials to join their efforts for the Governor to veto the bill.

"It appears that the groups have now entered a new phase in their political activism: rolling back First Amendment religious protections," said Martin Cothran, spokesman for the group. "Gay rights groups used to be opposed to discrimination; now they're promoting it."

The Family Foundation, the Catholic Conference of Kentucky, and the Kentucky Baptist Convention have all called on the Governor to sign the bill, which was passed by large majorities in both chambers of the General Assembly.

###

In Defense of Women: Pay no attention to those reports of sexual harassment in the military

... men and women are interchangeable
men and women are interchangeable
men and women are interchangeable
men and ...

Oh. Excuse me. I was right in the middle of my daily progressivist chant, a discipline I regularly practice in order to keep certain truths firmly planted in my consciousness so that I don't begin to doubt them on account of, well, you know, the actual evidence.

I have had to be particularly intentional about it over the last week or so because of the spate of news stories about women in the military, where it makes it sound as if it is not the Shangri-La we all know it to be.

According to these reports, sexual harassment is rampant. But this just can't be.

I mean, if men and women are really the same, and we know this to be true according to our liberal ideology, then how can sexual harassment be such a problem in the military? Sexual harassment wasn't a problem when only men were in close contact for extended periods of time with men; so why is it a problem now that men are in close contact for long periods of time with women?

Here is the Huffington Post on the alleged problem:

According to the most recent report by the Pentagon's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, 3,192 sexual assaults were reported out of an estimated 19,000 -- roughly 52 a day -- between Oct. 1, 2010, to Sept. 31, 2011. The department estimates that only roughly 14 percent of the assaults were reported. The majority of sexual assaults each year are committed against service members by service members, SAPRO reports. While MSA does not affect only women, the office characterizes the "vast majority" of victims as female junior enlists under the age of 25, and the "vast majority" of perpetrators as male, older (under the age of 35) and generally higher-ranking.

Are we really supposed to believe that practically all the sexual harassment charges are by women against men--not men against women? We know this can't be in a world where everyone is equal. Next thing you know people will start suggesting that women are more likely than men to be raped when taken prisoner.

Right. Like we're going to believe that.

We all know that even when it gets down to the dust and sweat and blood of the battlefield, there are limits that even the most barbaric enemy would never transgress. Women in combat may have to contend with on the battlefield is being shot or blown up, but thank God the enemy would never even think to pinch them on the bottom.

Besides, wouldn't that violate the Geneva Convention or something?

Poisonous gas attacks our gals can handle. Let's just be thankful they will never be the target of unwelcome sexual remarks.

Sure, the enemy will use guns, mortars, grenades, and rockets. But create a hostile work environment? Even they wouldn't stoop to that.

Let's just all pray that America's military, staffed increasingly by what some people apparently think is the "weaker sex," might not be brought to its knees by the threat of being winked at.

Simper Fi.

UPDATE: For the functionally illiterate, there is a further explanation of this post here.

Since when do they teach Catholicism in a class that says that's exactly what they do?

Turns out the comparative religion crowd is long on diversity and short on basic reading skills:

At the end of a Wednesday evening class last semester, one of my students approached me to ask a question. After hesitating somewhat, he proceeded in the following manner: “Professor, I really have enjoyed your class, but you always teach as though Catholicism is true. You rarely talk about other religions, of which I was actually hoping to learn more about.” I reminded the troubled young man that he should re-read the syllabus, since “Teachings of the Catholic Church” is actually the official course title. The humorous encounter reminded me of Walker Percy’s response to the question of why he became a Catholic: “What else is there?” How ironic, yet typical of most university students, that someone would be taking a course on Catholicism and simultaneously be disgruntled that this is precisely what he is getting.

Read the rest here.