MJ: Maher's Muscle; Defending a Lost Cause

Steve already offered some comments on "MJ in SOCAL's" response to my review of Religulous which I posted at Maher's blog.

One first wonders why he's even trying to have a reasoned discussion with me. According to Maher, I'm suffering from a mental disorder. Would MJ try to have a reasoned discussion with Charlie Cheswick?

Or perhaps these guys?






No?

So MJ's already helping us critique Maher.

Anyway, let's see what MJ has to say in defense of Maher:

Mr. Manata, I’ve read your movie review and was amused at your attempt to discredit Bill Maher’s intelligence. Last I checked, Cornell University doesn’t issue BA’s to the village idiot, which you slyly implied about him with your village atheist comment.

First off, "Village Atheist" is a technical term. One can both be intelligent and a Village Atheist.

Secondly, universities do give degrees to village atheists. Sam Harris is recognized by many to be a paradigm case of a village atheist, yet he has a degree from Stanford. And I'm sure we don't need to discuss Dawkins's degrees.

Third, how come these atheist types don't like it when the shoe's on the other foot? MJ just got done watching a movie where he laughed at how stupid Christians were for an hour and a half. Now all of a sudden they don't like it when we call them religulous? This might be news to them, but I consider atheism to be irrational. See, I did laugh in the movie. I didn't laugh with Maher, I laughed at Maher. What really makes it funny is how smug and arrogant he is when his objections are such that my third grader could answer. When he walks around mispronouncing books of the Bible while mocking so-called ignorant Christians. When he shows he doesn't even understand some of the essential basics of the belief he attacks. Maher was funny because Maher was funny.

Fourth, MJ helps us, again, discredit Maher. Perhaps if he were more critical of what he swallowed from the New Atheists, he'd catch mistakes like these. See, Maher tells us that religious adherents are stupid. That they suffer from a mental disorder. That they are out to lunch if they believe the things they profess. That they are, well, "Religulous." But on MJ's own terms, Maher makes another boneheaded move here! How so? Let's look at some theists:

Marilyn McCord Adams Oxford

Robert M. Adams Oxford

William Alston Syracuse

James Anderson (degree from) University of Edinburgh, RTS

Jennifer Ashworth University of Waterloo

Harriet E. Baber University of San Diego

Deane Baker University of Natal, South Africa

Michael Beaty Baylor University

W. David Beck Liberty University

Francis Beckwith Baylor

Michael Bergmann Purdue University

Andrei Buckareff University of Rochester

J. Budziszewski University of Texas at Austin

Calvin College Philosophy Faculty

David K. Clark Bethel

Stephen Clark University of Liverpool

Matthew Clarke University of Natal, South Africa

Paul Copan Palm Beach Atlantic University

Winfried Corduan Taylor University

Jan A. Cover Purdue University

William Lane Craig Biola University

Charles L. Creegan

Thomas Crisp Biola University

George Cronk Bergen Community College

Richard Davis Tyndale College

Stephen T. Davis Claremont McKenna College

Scott A. Davison Morehead State University

Keith DeRose Yale University

Reinaldo Elugardo University of Oklahoma

C. Stephen Evans Baylor

Linda L. Farmer Wright State University

Alfred J. Freddoso University of Notre Dame

R. Douglas Geivett Biola University

Harry J. Gensler John Carroll University

Jonathan Gold West Liberty State College

Douglas Groothuis Denver Seminary

Stuart C. Hackett Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

Glenn A. Hartz Ohio State University

William Hasker Huntington College

Kenneth Einar Himma University of Washington

Peter Horban Simon Fraser University

John Hawthorne - Oxford

Hud Hudson Western Washington University

Jim Kanaris McGill University

Robert C. Koons University of Texas at Austin

Saul Kripke

Jeffrey Koperski Saginaw Valley State University

K.D. Kragen KaveDragen, Ink.

Peter Kreeft Boston College

Norman Kretzmann Cornell University

Steve Kumar NZ Apologetics Society

Jonathan Kvanvig Baylor

Robert A. Larmer University of New Brunswick

William F. Lawhead University of Mississippi

Brian Leftow Oxford

Mark Linville Atlanta Christian College

Scott MacDonald Cornell University

Alasdair MacIntyre Notre Dame [ more ]

Ronald McCamy Moorpark College

Hugh McCann Texas A&M

Timothy J. McGrew Western Michigan University

Pat Manfredi Southern Illinois University at Carbondale

William E. Mann University of Vermont

Gary R. Mar SUNY Stony Brook

Christopher Menzel Texas A&M

Trenton Merricks University of Virginia

Scott H. Moore Baylor University

J. P. Moreland Biola University

Wes Morriston University of Colorado, Boulder

Paul K. Moser Loyola University of Chicago

Michael Muth Westminster College

Mark Nelson University of Leeds

Joseph Novak University of Waterloo

Timothy O’Connor Indiana University

Ric Otte University of California at Santa Cruz

Alan Padgett Luther Seminary

Alvin Plantinga University of Notre Dame [ more ]

Louis P. Pojman University of Mississippi

Alexander Pruss Baylor

Hilary Putnam Harvard [more]

Del Ratzsh Calvin College

Michael C. Rea University of Notre Dame

Bruce Reichenbach Augsburg College

Victor Reppert

Nicholas Rescher University of Pittsburgh [ more ]

Greg Restall University of Melbourne

Phil Ruetz University of Rochester

Thomas Senor University of Arkansas

Daniel Howard-Snyder Western Washington University

Francis Howard-Snyder Western Washington University

James S. Spiegel Taylor University

Eleonore Stump Saint Louis University

Michael Sudduth San Francisco State University

Frederick Suppe University of Maryland

William Sweet St. Thomas University

Richard Swinburne University of Oxford

Thomas Talbott Willamette University

Charles Taliaferro St. Olaf College

Gregg ten Elshof Biola University

William Tolhurst Northern Illinois University

Dale Tuggy SUNY Fredonia

Bas van Fraasen Princeton

Peter van Inwagen University of Notre Dame

Daniel von Wachter Oriel College (Oxford)

William F. Vallicella

Donald Wacome Northwestern College

William Wainwright University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

Bernard Walker Bethel University

C. Robert Wetzel Emmanuel School of Religion

Barry Whitney University of Windsor

Phillip Wiebe Trinity Western University

Edward Wierenga University of Rochester

Peter S. Williams

Greg Welty (degree from) Oxford, SWBTS

Nicholas Wolterstorff Yale

David Yandell Loyola University of Chicago

Keith Yandell University of Wisconsin-Madison

Dean Zimmerman Rutgers University

Should I keep going?

And my guys don't just have "BA'S", they have "Ph.D's".

"I can’t speak for Bill Maher, but I know I agree with most of his observations."

Wouldn't the fact that they are Bill Maher's "observations" mean that he agrees with them?

"I suppose it’s feasible the Wharton School accidently let me slide through their MBA program and that my intelligence should be eyed suspiciously, since I too have dared to question the legitimacy of all religious text."

I have no doubt that both you and Maher are "intelligent." I never claimed otherwise. But when it comes to speaking on religion, I'm sorry, he just sounds ... well, friggin religulous!

"For the record, I’ve read them all: The Torah, The Bible and the Quran, as well as many books on Eastern religions."

Good, then I assume you laughed right along with me at all of Maher’s blunders.

And, for the record, it's not a matter of simply "reading" the text, it's how you read it. But then I'm sure you knew that given your educational 'n all. Hermeneutics and exegesis matter, as I'm sure you know. So you'll understand why I'm never impressed when an unbeliever tells me, "I've read the Bible." And not merely because I rarely believe them. I mean, it's hard enough for Spirit-filled Christians to read through some portions of the Bible.

"And despite all my long thoughtful conversations with faithful and well educated Jews, Christians and Muslims, I’ve concluded that all religions do one thing: They require their believers to suspend logic and not question the contradictions or inconsistencies of their teachings."

Well, anyone can make assertions like that. I might as well say the same about nonbelievers. And I'm sure you can make sense of normative claims like "People shouldn't believe contradictions," right?

"And they’ll all have you believe the reward for your self-imposed ignorance (or “faith” as we like to call it) is some mystical eternal after life and the punishment for thinking outside the box is fire and damnation."

I'm sure you can document that the Bible teaches this ... emotive-laden words and question begging epithets included?

"I give credence to the possibility the seeds of these faiths may not have been planted as tools to manipulate their believers to do evil in God’s name, but history has shown that is exactly what their leaders have done; hijacked the faithful to fulfill their power hungry agendas."

I refute this oversimplified view of the causes of evils in my post, you may want to interact with it.

So, you can nitpick Bill’s approach and presentation, both of which I found to be hilarious, but his argument that there is no proof outside of a holy text or in peoples minds that God exists is solid.

Perhaps you can point me to where he argued that? The above theistic philosophers would disagree. And, by the way, are you saying that one is irrational if they don't believe something without proof? Do you believe that? Can you prove it? If you prove it, do you believe the proof? Then prove the proof. Ad infinitum... And, while we're at it, what is proof? How does one go about "proving" something in your worldview?

"You say the bible is based in history, and I do believe that to be true. But, have you ever read the American Indians version of how the white man came to rule the West? Not surprisingly, it’s very different than the white man’s version. The point being that just because someone wrote it down a long time ago does not automatically mean it’s the whole story or even the truth."

Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's all rather a waste of your time considering the fact that the segment of my post you're referring to wasn't meant to be an argument. It was meant to be a correction and an explanation. The paragraph should have made that clear.

"We know there are books that were omitted from the Bible because a council of men decided that if they were included they would be too divisive. They decided what story to tell, and they manipulated the text to tell that story and that story alone. They even went so far as to try and destroy those texts, so no evidence of their existence could be found."

Those are what's called bare naked assertions. Perhaps you can wrap your claims in some substance next time? For one so big on "proof," I, for one, would love to see the "proof" you have about the mental states of two-thousand year old men!

"So, since that’s all in recorded history, how does one believe beyond any reasonable doubt that the Bible is anything but the definitive word of the men who assembled it?"

I reject your view of the history. Uh oh, now you have to actually defend your take on the events. You think you're the first person to raise these objections?

"Oh, that’s right; they don’t teach that part of the church’s history in Sunday school, so most Christians don’t know about it."

No, actually, colleges and seminaries and Christian books address the very issue you're trying to raise. In fact, they go over it all in some detail. So it appears that you're the one who's getting spoon fed from only one side.

A study in two syllogisms

MJ in SoCal said...

"Mr. Manata, I’ve read your movie review and was amused at your attempt to discredit Bill Maher’s intelligence. Last I checked, Cornell University doesn’t issue BA’s to the village idiot, which you slyly implied about him with your village atheist comment."

http://therealbillmaher.blogspot.com/2008/10/religulous.html?showComment=1224715320000#c7659095284536941293

1) Cornell doesn't issue BA's to village idiots

2) Maher has a BA from Cornell

3) Therefore, Maher is not a village idiot

**************************************

1) Maher is a village idiot

2) Maher has a BA from Cornell

3) Therefore, Cornell issues BA's to village idiots

Skin-deep

A skinheadist…I mean…kinist blogger has commented on some of my recent posts. Needless to say, he doesn’t offer anything resembling a rational refutation of what I said.

He does, however, have some colorful epithets at his disposal. For instance, he calls me a “Race Mixer.”

I confess I’ve never seen a Race Mixer. Is that a cross between a cocktail mixer and a relay runner?

He also calls me a “Bloodsmutter”—which is better than a Bloods Mutter, but much worse than a Blood Mutters. Or so I imagine.

BTW, given chronic shortages in the national blood supply, I think kinists should be required by law to carry cards which state that under no circumstances would they accept a transfusion from a donor of the “wrong” race. That would free up more hemoglobin for the rest of us in case of major surgery.

He then refers the Master Race to a critique of my position by someone he calls Pastor Bret McAtee. I notice that McAtee is a contributor to lewrockwell.com, which tells you a lot about Lew Rockwell.

So what does the good “Pastor” have to say?

“The social views of blacks, if we are to take voting habits for the Democratic party as an indicator, has been uniform for quite some time regardless of the color of the Democrat at the top of the ticket. The Black candidate Obama may get a few more percentage points of support among the Black community but not enough to suggest that voting habits of Blacks in this election is anything different from other elections.”

http://ironink.org/index.php?blog=1&title=interacting_with_tribalogue&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

From what I’ve read, Obama is expected to garner a significantly higher percentage of the black vote than Kerry got in ’04.

“It is not ethnic or racial identity as ethnic or racial identity that is sinful per se.”

I never said it was. Rather, I said it was a question of priorities.

“It is certainly understandable that ‘blood is thicker than water’.”

Not surprisingly, that’s a German proverb. Kinism as quite a lot in common with German philosophy—especially between 1933 and 1945.

“What is sinful and what the vicarious symbolism reflects is that the people group in question (with notable exceptions), as evidenced by their voting habits, incarceration habits, crime habits, and welfare habits have rejected Christ. Their joint voting for Obama merely reinforces the reality of that rejection.”

Coming from the lips of a kinist, this is rather like John Spong denouncing Harry Emerson Fosdick for apostasy. Somehow it’s hard to tell the difference.

“There is nothing ironic about racial and ethnic solidarity.”

I never said there was. The irony lay in parallel between Southern white Confederates and black Obama supporters.

“It seems that White people are the only ethnic people who don’t practice it.”

Of course, if you have to “practice” racial solidarity, then you’re pretending to be something you’re not. I might as well practice having chest hair or blue eyes.

“Second, White Southerners, during the ramp up to the Second War for American Independence, were responding to a mortal threat from an enemy who were threatening to destroy them and their way of life.”

Well, that’s a bit overstated. For one thing, B. B. Warfield’s kin (to take one example) fought for the Union, not the Confederacy. Yet Warfield’s kin were white Southerners, too.

“What is sadly predictable is that this writer has only read the court historians, and as such he is clueless about the various motives that inspired Southerners.”

I see. So Thornwell and Dabney were merely “court historians”—oblivious to the real motives of white Southerners. Kinists really do need to devise a DNA test to distinguish true white Southerners from false white Southerners. Before we can segregate blacks from whites, we need to segregate true whites from false whites and true Southerners from false Southerners—not to mention true white Southerners from false white Southerners. It’s all so confusing.

“The Southerners did not defend themselves against the onslaught of Northern tyranny with the primary purpose of defending the institution of slavery.”

Well, whatever their “primary” motive was, Dabney wrote a whole book defending Southern slavery in relation to the Civil War—while the fourth volume of Thornwell’s Collected Writings devotes quite a lot of space to the very same subject. . I prefer to get my Confederate history from real dead Confederates rather than wistful wannabes.

“If men like Dabney and Thornwell did have social and emotional attachments, they had social and emotional attachments to a culture that was largely Christian.”

If it was largely Christian, then it was Christian in spite of race-based bondage.

“Are the social and emotional attachments of the Black community to B. Hussein Obama and the Democratic party social and emotional attachment that are largely Christian?”

No more or less Christian than the Confederate cause.

“Yes, I would say they are a reverse mirror image. Whereas White Southerners united together in order to resist tyranny, Blacks are uniting together in order to embrace tyranny and slavery.”

I’m all for resisting tyranny. And if the white Southerners had the right to resist Northern tyranny, then black Southerners had the right to resist Southern tyranny.

Obamageddon

"For Conservatives, Obama's Changes Would Be Permanent and Devastating"

When is it Acceptable for a ''Pro-Life'' Voter to Vote for a ''Pro-Choice'' Candidate?

When is it Acceptable for a ''Pro-Life'' Voter to Vote for a ''Pro-Choice'' Candidate? by Gerard V. Bradle

Jew-haters by the numbers

Michael Butler and his coblogger have some—shall we say, very “interesting”—opinions about the Jews. Says Butler:

“To put this in perspective, Jews constitute approximately 2% of the US population. Jews are, thus, statistically speaking, three times overrepresented in the House, five times overrepresented in the Senate and more than ten times overrepresented in the Supreme Court. Jews also head three of the most important Federal posts — Ben Bernanke is Chairman of the Fed, Michael Chertoff is head of Homeland Security, Michael Mukasey is Attorney General.”

http://butler-harris.org/archives/295

I wouldn’t say that Jews are overrepresented. Rather, I’d say that Jews are disproportionately represented. It’s not as if Jews have achieved their position through quotas.

As long as you get to where you are through diligence and talent, what does it matter if you’re disproportionately represented?

“To add insult to injury, even Editor-in-Chief of ‘Christian’ World Magazine is Jewish.”

How is it supposed to be “insulting” that a Marvin Olasky is Editor-in-Chief of World Magazine? Olasky is, after all, a Messianic Jew.

Does Butler take the position that Messianic Jews like Moishe Rosen, Michael L. Brown, Charles Lee Feinberg, John & Paul Feinberg, Steven Schlissel, Meredith Kline, and Jay Sekulow (to name a few) aren’t even Christian?

Or if he would concede their Christian bona fides, then why would it be “insulting” to have a Messianic Jew in charge of World Magazine?

“While you ponder this, ponder also the fruit of the federal government, the universities, and the media over the last few decades. Do you think there may be a connection between the steep decline of all three institutions and their increasingly Jewish composition?”

Wouldn’t the increasingly secular composition be a better index?

Butler then quotes some choice statements by Mencken:

“No Jewish composer has ever come within miles of Bach, Beethoven and Brahms.”

True. We could say with equal justice that no Calvinist composer has ever come within miles of Bach, Beethoven and Brahms. Doesn’t Butler claim to be a Calvinist?

Continuing with Menken: “no Jew has ever challenged the top-flight painters of the world.”

Of course, that’s because Judaism represents an aniconic tradition.

“And no Jewish scientist has ever equaled Newton, Darwin, Pasteur or Mendel. . .”

Does Butler think that Darwin was a great scientist? Anyway, Jewish have made outstanding and disproportionate contributions to math, medicine, physics, economics, and chess—to name a few brainy disciplines.

Returning to Butler’s own statements: “For those who have not realized how much jews are our enemies, perhaps this short video will give some food for thought.”

The Jews are our enemies? Which Jews? Liberal Jews? Yes, but you could say the same thing about liberal goyim.

“My criterion was not who has the most ribbons and baubles. Indeed, one could make a case that those who win the silly prizes could almost certainly not be great. Very few of the greats are recognized by their contemporaries.The business about 42% citations in humanities shows how irrelevant raw statistical data is (”are” for the schoolmarms).”

Notice how he changes horses in mid-stream. He began by complaining that Jews are overrepresented in certain fields, but underrepresented in brainy fields like logic, math, medicine, and science.

When, however, commenters pointed out that Jews are disproportionately represented in the brainy fields as well, Butler suddenly decries the value of statistics.

“Name just one jewish writer of the caliber Milton, Goethe, Dante, Virgil, Pound, or Eliot. As you say, I could go on.”

Oh, I don't know. What about...the Bible?

“Even with this, the whole business about jewish brain power was not the point of my post. Jews are over overrepresented in most professions. That is a fact. The question is, why? I don’t believe it is because they are smarter or even that they are more ambitious than other races. The Chinese are just as ambitious and yet they do not dominate the fields they enter into. Something else is at play. I am asking my readers to try to answer this question. Once this is answered correctly, much light will be thrown on the jewish problem.”

The “Jewish problem”?

“The US is currently fighting two unjust wars for Israel and is threatening a third.”

How is the war in Afghanistan a war “for Israel”? (Not that I concede the war in Iraq is a war for Israel.)

Of course, Butler is a 9/11 Truther, so maybe I shouldn’t ask.

“For another, I do not hate jews per se. I do count Christ’s enemies as my own and jews are Christ’s enemies.”

Of course, he leaves out the second part of the verse he’s alluding to. Here’s the full quote: “As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers” (Rom 11:28).

And, of course, Gentile unbelievers also enemies of the gospel—without the compensation of being beloved for the sake of their forefathers.

In addition, though, does he think that Messianic Jews are enemies of Christ? If not, why did he say it was “insulting” for Marvin Olasky to be in charge of World Magazine?

“But even if I were filled with hatred toward jews, it would not be irrational and certainly not blind.”

Why would it not be irrational to be filled with hatred for Jews? Didn’t Paul say, in the very verse he alluded to, that they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers?

“Consider all the fathers of our religion who have spoken against jews in even stronger terms than I. Consider that jews have been expelled from every European nation at one time or another. Prime facie this should cause us to pause and consider why they have taken such a strong line against jews.”

Doesn’t he claim to be a Calvinist? Historically, Calvinist has been a very philosemitic tradition.

“As for why ‘jewish infiltration’ is bad, just switch jewish with Muslim or animism or feminism or sadism and you will have the answer.”

So, from his standpoint, a Jew like Larry Kudlow, Daniel Lapin, Mark Levin, Michael Medved, Bob Novak, Dennis Prager, Ben Stein, John Stossel, or Ludwig von Mises (to name a few) is equivalent to the Muslim, animist, feminist, or sadist?

Then we have this charming statement from Butler’s sidekick, Timothy Harris:

“I have a slightly different angle on this subject. Let it be that not just many, but all the inventors and mathematicians were of the hebishkeit. Fine; now will you all just go home to Israel please, and not come back? Take the spies, enslaving “financiers,” blaspheming movie-makers, tendentious news-casters, and corrupting judges and lawyers, and you can also have all those geniuses. Despite exceptions here and there, overall, the infiltrated hebishkeitsreich is simply unhealthy for goy nations. We’ll buy your ball point pens from afar.”

The worst part of this is that Butler is a ruling elder in the OPC as well as a philosophy prof. at an allegedly Reformed seminary:

http://www.christtheologicalseminary.net/our-teaching-faculty.php

Are his colleagues at CTS aware of his anti-Semitic ravings? Is the RPCUS (with which his seminary is affiliated) aware of his anti-Semitic ravings? Is the OPC aware of his anti-Semitic ravings? Shouldn’t he be defrocked?

He needs to join a denomination where he feels more at home—like the World Church of the Creator.

Religulous

Being stuck indoors for the better part of a week due to a fairly major shoulder surgery, I had to get out and do something. So I figured I’d go read a chapter in Horton’s Christless Christianity at Barnes & Noble and then go see Religulous. I hadn’t originally planned on seeing Maher’s Masterpiece [sic], but being laid up like this gave me an excuse. Most of the other movies out my wife wants to see too, so I’m not going to go to one of those solo. I found out she wanted to see Max Payne after I saw it and wasn’t too happy that I went without her! Doesn’t matter too much, though. I was still in fairly strong pain and spent most of the movie shifting around in my seat and concentrating on my shoulder rather than the movie. Anyway, the pain wasn't too bad today while watching Religulous … well, the shoulder pain , that is. Since I'm wounded, T-blog authorities put me on light duty, New Atheist Duty. Since this is an apologetic blog that tries to deal with every attack against the faith, someone had to see the movie. Given that I'm not much use in other areas right now, I took one for the team and watched Religulous so I could to report back to all our T-blog readers.

The movie takes a page right out of the New Atheist handbook. The basics go like this: Religion is absurd and religious adherents are suffering from a mental disorder. Religion causes all the death and destruction in the world. Religions teach an end times, and now have the ability to make this a self-fulfilling prophecy. Therefore, we need to end religion to ensure the safety of the human race. He concludes the movie saying, “Religion must die in order for mankind to live.” Maher’s tutelage under the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris is evident. But Maher is not as intelligent as Dawkins or as witty a wordsmith as Hitchens. If all the village atheists around the world formed their own village, he’d be the village atheist of the village.

Maher is his typical smug, condescending self. His aim is to make religious adherents look like idiots. It is clear that he lied to get people to appear in the movie as almost every single person interviewed had to interrupt Maher and ask him what his intentions were. Apparently one pastor thought the film crew was from PBS. Senator Mark Pryor of Arkansas has claimed Maher was severely misleading. What could have made for an interesting segment of the film was Maher’s “interview” with Dr. Francis Collins of the Human Genome Project. Collins said he “felt a bit misused,” but was sharp enough to “guess no one would claim this was an attempt to find the real truth.” He’s right, I certainly didn’t. Anyway, apparently it’s morally problematic to “lie for Jesus” but morally virtuous to “lie for Mammaw Nature.”

The editing is bad and blatant. It’s clear the editors steered the film in the direction they wanted it to go. And if Maher couldn’t “catch” the guy in the act, he’d later critique the person from inside his van. At one time he gave his “comeback” two days later. And if he couldn’t think of a “comeback” on the road, the editors added text to the film contradicting what the person was saying. Maher began by insulting the audience’s intelligence by claiming that he was going on an honest and open-minded quest to find out how believers could believe what they do. As anyone with half-a-brain could tell, this was clearly not the intent. One also wonders if Maher smoked weed during the entire cross-country trip since when he was in Amsterdam, taking pulls from a joint filled with some dank reefer, he claimed that the mota helped him open up his mind. This isn’t to shake my finger and condemn tokers as some kind of self-righteous pietist, just to point out that I’ve been there before. I remember my teen years and early to mid-twenties when my friends and I would smoke bud and “trip out” on how deeply we could think through issues. So there was a sense of fulfillment the flick gave me in that I’ve always wondered what it would be liked to get critiqued from the likes of Jeff Spicoli.

Now there was one aspect I appreciated about Maher’s film, but before I get to that I’ll mention a few of the more memorable bone-headed errors made by Maher throughout the film. What’s ironic about the movie is how Maher wants to paint himself with the intellectual brush, yet he just couldn’t help tarring and feathering himself as a religulous religious ignoramus. It’s clear that Maher, much like many of those who critique the faith, just can’t seem to escape the hayseed, backwoods fundamentalism and literalism characteristic of much of American Christianity. So, though Maher never missed an opportunity to question a made-up word used by a religious adherent, point out their ignorance of the Bible, and mock them for not knowing some accepted facts, for his own part he:

1. Called the book of Revelation the book of RevelationS, multiple times. Indeed, the editors even spelled the book as “RevelationS” when they added the printed text.

2. Claimed the book of “Revelations” actually taught that Jesus was coming back to a specific place in Israel, Megiddo. He offered no verse, no exegesis, and didn’t preface the comment by saying “some Christians believe the book of Revelations [sic] teaches such and such.”

3. Tried to make a joke about the first time people heard of circumcision, claiming that it was from Moses. Abraham would have been more precise, although many ANE cultures did circumcising of their own.

4. Claimed multiple times that Jesus was “against being rich,” period. No qualification, rich qua rich.

5. Claimed all Christians think that they’re drinking the actual, literal blood of Jesus.

6. Claimed Christians believe in three gods, but sometimes shifted from that to modalism (e.g., claimed Jesus “prayed to himself”). In fact, when the “Jesus” character at Orlando’s “Holy Land” theme park tried to show how the Trinity made sense he used the old “water, gas, ice” analogy. Not only did this stump Maher where all he could do is simply laugh at the answer two days later, he was too ignorant to recognize it as modalism.

7. Claimed he was on a war against certainty yet was certain that no one knew that Christianity was true. He even told people that they didn’t know. He also brushed people off who didn’t believe in macro evolution as just “obviously wrong.” Evolution is a fact, and that’s that. So he suffered from a rational/irrational dialectic.

8. Claimed Jesus’ “second coming” was a “second reincarnation” of Jesus.

9. Reasoned that the Bible did not originally teach a virgin birth since only 2 out of the 4 Gospel’s taught it (he left out the other references, though)! I fail to see the connection. If the Bible mentioned it only once, then the Bible would have mentioned it. Maher’s “reasoning” seems to be “but it was so important and foundational, so why would anyone leave it out.” This probably stems from his Catholic upbringing as well as his view that the “Gospels were biographies.” He seemed basically ignorant of Christian theology as well as early Christianity.

10. Asserted without so much as an argument or documentation that the Jesus story is based on Horus. He never so much as hinted that he was aware of the counter arguments, and seemed unaware that even some of the most skeptical atheists (like Richard Carrier, for instance) have denied some of these links. I guess bald assertions are cause for ridicule if you’re a believer, but become incontrovertible fact when uttered, without evidence, by smug agnostics.

11. Claims the 10 commandments are inferior since they don’t mention child abuse.

12. Claims homosexuality isn’t considered a sin by Jesus because Jesus “didn’t mention it.”

13. Has an anti-supernatural bias. Either miracles are coincidental, or prophecies were "fulfilled" by later writers, or if the miracle reports take place later, they just didn't happen since rational people simply can't believe such a thing.

14. Affirms moral relativism yet acts as if some of the evils committed in the name of a religion are absolutely immoral.

Those were a few of the blunders and schoolyard arguments Maher seems to think are sufficient to undermine religious belief.

But what happens when we hold Maher to his own standard? For instance, what about his claims that religion is the only cause of man’s woes and if it were gone, all would be well. Given his constant request that one base his beliefs on evidence, and scientific study, Maher frequently drops the ball on his own end. For example, take his belief that religion is the cause of war. He fails to engage in any scientific investigation on how it is that religion is to blame for all the troubles in the world. He doesn’t, as Plato said, “carve nature at its joints” but he “hacks off parts like a clumsy butcher.” One rightly wonders, especially since Maher offered no sources, from where did he draw his scientific data from? Or, is he meaning to give us a rant based on loosely cobbled facts mashed together with some of his own personal experiences, and concluding with a fallacious hasty generalization that “religion poisons everything?”

If the latter, we are, again, free to dismiss him. If the former, I wonder how this is so? Maher certainly presented no data or cited any sources. One such study on the nature of war and violence that came out just last year is the book, The Most Dangerous Animal by David Livingstone Smith, an atheist philosopher. He claims on page 35 that the scientific study of war is a recent phenomenon. One survey of the world’s three leading sociological journals, Smith points out, revealed that less than 3% of the articles published between 1936 and 1984 concerned war, and most were published in 1942. Another survey of articles between 1986 and 2000 reveal that fewer than 1% deal with war, and none of them considered the causes of war.

One thing you do in an objective, scientific study of something is take into account all the relevant empirical information. Those who exclude empirical data that bears on their thesis are not engaged in honest scientific inquiry. They’re engaging in a witch hunt! Maher doesn’t mention sociological, economic, political, historical, ideological ethical, or geographical factors, all of which play a huge part in wars. He doesn’t reference the influential work of Robert Pape, for example, who concluded in the book Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism: “There is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world's religions.” After studying 315 suicide attacks from 1981-2004, Pape, a University of Chicago political science professor, concludes that suicide bombers' actions stem from logical military strategies, not their religion. Pape claims that the fundamental motive is political. The desire to force the withdrawal of foreign forces occupying land believed to belong to an oppressed people who have seriously limited resources at their disposal (McGrath, Dawkins Delusion, 80), is demonstrated by Pape through serious scientific study.

The simple fact of the matter is, and it is one that Maher is too lazy to take note of or account for, the causes of war are just too complex a thing; we must, as atheist David Livingstone Smith puts it, “resist the temptation to box the causes of war in tidy categories hedged about with arbitrary distinctions.” Smith, our Darwinian atheist philosopher, offers his views on the cause of war in his book. He claims that, “War can be approached from many angles. We can consider it from the standpoint of various disciplines. All of these are important, but there is one dimension that underpins them all: the bedrock of human nature.” (p. xiii)

Other atheists that are more level headed than Maher on this matter are those like Michael Shermer. Shermer claims that he “is not convinced by the New Atheists argument that without religion there would be, "no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Indian partition, no Israeli/Palestinian wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no persecution of Jews as 'Christ-killers,' no Northern Ireland 'troubles'…. In my opinion, many of these events—and others often attributed solely to religion by atheists—were less religiously motivated than politically driven, or at the very least involved religion in the service of political hegemony.”

Worries about the hack scholarship of some like Maher and the New Atheist led University of Hawaii political scientist R.J. Rummell to introduce the term “democide” to cover all forms of politically motivated government-sponsored killing apart from warfare. Maher seems to think that all genocides are religiously motivated. But estimates of the death toll from 20th century democide ranges up toward the 170 million mark according to Rummell’s book Death By Government. How can Maher's theory explain all the relevant data. As a worshiper of "Science," Maher should know that a scientific hypothesis that cannot account for all of the relevant data should be dropped. But Maher is one of the faithful. He refuses to let facts and evidence get in the way of his jihad.

David Livingstone Smith claims that, “Today’s genocides and ethnocide often take place at the behest of multinational corporations eager to acquire resources, typically by dispossession and environmental degradation. These include oil interests in Ecuador, Burma, Nigeria, copper and cold West Papua, farming in Tanzania, logging in Malaysia, and uranium mining in Australia.” He states that, “Wars are purposeful. They are fought for resources, lebensraum, oil, gold, food, and water or peculiarly abstract or imaginary goods like God, honor, race, democracy, and destiny” (p. 7)

And that is the level-headed answer. I certainly do not mean to absolve all religion or all religious adherents from their involvement in wars and killings and terrorist activities. I recognize their involvement, just as I recognize a whole host of other factors. No religion will not equal out to no war.

And with that, I’d say Maher biggest weapon in his arsenal just got turned into a squirt gun ... minus the water.

Now for the useful aspect of Maher’s film. No doubt it’s a chicken bleep move to attack a bunch of “Christians” at a truck stop church in the deep south, but no one claimed Maher was an intellectual giant. Of course the main argumentative force of his film was that he appealed to a lot of extreme versions of Christianity. Crazed tongue speakers, holy laughter twits, a man claiming to be the second coming of Christ, and a dash of Fred Phelps. That is to say, this wasn’t a sincere, rational, scientific inquiry into the reasons for faith; it was simply a concerted effort to make religion look stupid based on cherry-picked evidence samples. But despite all of that, Maher really showed how far American Christianity has gone. Even when he dealt with milder versions than the above, whether the folksy charm of Osteen-esk Christians or more popular forms of contemporary evangelicalism, the rather lost condition of much of the church came through loud and clear. After dozens of years trying to become “relevant” to the world, they became another side-show. Another moralistic system promising to give us “our best life now,” complete with a handbook on how to “take back America for Jesus.” The gospel has been lost in all of this. This was quite clear even in Maher’s own understanding. He claimed he tuned out of Christianity because it wasn’t “relevant” for him. It was just a “set of rules” and he wanted “to masturbate to pin-ups.” Maher gives no indication that he’s familiar with the gospel of Jesus Christ. That’s not necessarily his fault. The blame lies with the rock concert churches and the Jesus-as-life-coach Christianity popular in much of contemporary Christian bookstores.

So I’ll take this opportunity to tell Maher something he may not know. Christianity isn’t primarily about making a better you. It’s not about turning this world into heaven. It’s not about filling that “hole in your heart;” you know, the one the Jesus character at the Orlando theme park told you you had. It’s about something that happened in history. Something that was accomplished for sinners by Jesus Christ. It’s not about looking at me and how well I’m doing in life. It’s not about looking at those well-meaning but theologically ignorant Christians at the souvenir shop, it’s about looking to Christ and what he did for us. It’s about an actual resurrection that took place in history where God judged an innocent Jesus so that all of those united to him by faith have also been declared innocent. That declaration is final. It cannot be reversed. Please don’t look at me, I’m a failure. Don’t look at any of Jesus’ followers, even those in Hebrews 11. Don’t ask, “what would Jesus do?”. All that matters is what he has done. If the Spirit so chooses to make this word effectual in your heart, and you grasp the gravity of your condition before a holy God, and you marvel at the grace that was given to you totally apart from anything worthy in you, and you place your faith in the work of another, trusting in him, you will bear fruit in your life. But that good fruit always comes with rotten fruit. We are both sinner and saint. So we trust in the goodness of Christ, every day, as the only basis upon which we can stand before the Father. Christians are ridiculous much of the time. But the foolishness of God is wiser than men. Of course I don’t mean to say that we are irrational, or anti-intellectual. Indeed, I believe it was this religious person who made your arguments against and knowledge of Christianity look rather ridiculous. We can easily answer all of your reasons for not believing; that is, if you ever give any reasons instead of the sophormoric and emotive bleatings of a New Atheist sheep. I just mean to say that your focus is on the wrong man.

Universal health care

Two posts on universal health care:

1. "Hawaii Scraps Universal Health Care for Children"
   
   
2. "First Year Results in Massachusetts' Health Care Reform Undercut Barack Obama's Health Care Reform Strategy"

The CANdidates

ASP News, Denver – Pundits, anchors, and other members of the media waited in eager anticipation for the first speech candidate Pepsi would give after accepting his party’s nomination for President of the United Sodas of America.

Pepsi, marketed as the Choice of a New Generation, has enjoyed wide appeal in the media. “The first time I tried Pepsi, a shiver ran up my leg,” said Chris Matthews, a short-tempered and short man who we assume has a TV show somewhere. “That shiver continues to this day.”

Pollsters are convinced that Pepsi will win the election despite the fact that those they poll do not agree. “We alter the polls consistently, changing the questions here and there, and eventually they get the right numbers,” said one anonymous pollster who wished to remain anonymous because he was spineless.

After months of speculation, Pepsi announced Dr Pepper as his running mate. Dr Pepper ran against Pepsi earlier in the race, denouncing Pepsi as a radical leftist who was too blue. It had widely been assumed that Mr. Pibb would get the nod after her close race with Pepsi.

“After looking over the details,” Pepsi said, “we decided to go with the purple-ish can of prune juice. Dr Pepper’s experience is evident by the ‘Dr’ sans period at the front of his name. Mr. Pibb just couldn’t compete with that. Even though her husband, Mrs. Pibb, was a successful president if you can ignore his record.”

The Pibbs were unavailable for comment.

ASP News, St. Paul – SHOCK!

That is the only word that can describe the scene here in the Xcel Energy Center as Coke Classic, an aged formula long popular with nursing home residents and prescription drug addicts, announced his choice for running mate: Mountain Dew.

“I never saw that one coming,” said Anderson Cooper, who never saw it coming. “Every indicator pointed to Coke Zero topping the short list. Instead, Coke Classic picked someone who is completely GREEN! Mountain Dew has no experience whatsoever. In fact, only drunk co-eds like Mountain Dew, and only then because of her looks.”

Diet Coke had spent months campaigning for the candidate’s coveted VP slot. “This is a complete sell out,” said the junior diet soda from Georgia. “They say it’s not easy being green. Well, it’s about to get a lot tougher.” Diet Coke is now said to be stumping for Pepsi.

The media, working in conjunction with Pepsi's campaign, has promised to vet Mountain Dew’s credentials. Already, however, it looks like a lost cause for Coke Classic. “Have you ever opened a can of Mountain Dew?” one Pepsi spokesman said. “It looks like a can of urine. What does it say about Coke Classic’s judgment if his pick looks like human waste?”

Sprite, and other women’s rights groups, have denounced Mountain Dew over her views on abortion. “Mountain Dew totally should have aborted that Code Red crap. The only thing we have in common is carbonated water and high fructose corn syrup” said Sprite. “That’s not enough to make me vote for a sell-out.”

ASP News, Someone’s Basement – In other news, 7-Up has announced Ale-8-1 as his running mate. 7-Up, running on the environmentalist green ticket, so far only has the backing of Moon Mist Shasta, the former vice president tuned recycling activist who earned fame last year after the success of his film “An Inconvenient Fizz.”

Critics are already questioning Ale-8’s experience, given his limited distribution in and around the state of Kentucky. “We all know that Kentuckians are just a bunch of racist rednecks,” said Dr Pepper. “What do the hicks down there really know anyway?”

ASP News, Washington DC – The presidential campaign took a nasty turn today as Pepsi and Coke Classic both went negative. Pepsi’s negative campaign was witty and refreshing, as Pepsi called Coke classic a “flat” and “undrinkable” beverage.

Coke Classic responded with a vicious character attack, saying Pepsi had been “left out in the car under the hot sun for too long.” When asked if Coke Classic thought the negative tone of the campaign would hurt him, he responded: “He started it.”

Pepsi retorted with “I know you are but what am I?”

Meanwhile, 7-Up has asked to attend the first presidential debate, scheduled for next week. So far, no one is paying him any attention.

ASP News, Washington DC – The continual vitriol of the campaign took a turn for the worst as Coke Classic accused Pepsi of ties with the pink can, TaB. TaB, which in 1969 contained the now-banned chemical cyclamate, supposedly launched the career of Pepsi from TaB’s living room, if you believe Coke Classic and the people who were there instead of those of us in the media who don’t want you to focus on this.

Pepsi has fired back that TaB is just some can in the neighborhood and that Pepsi was only eight years old when TaB’s cyclamate was banned by the FDA. Coke Classic countered that while “Pepsi” was only eight years old, “Pepsi-Cola” had been around since 1903, and was originally called “Brad’s Drink” in 1898.

Since we’re the media and we are objective, we will ignore everything about TaB. Instead, an important thing to ponder is the fact that Coke Classic is the real hypocrite here. Coke Classic had an original formula, but now is only pretending to remain true to the original formula having substituted high fructose corn syrup for his original sweetener, cane sugar. Furthermore, Coke is made from processed cocaine leaves. Explain that, Coke Classic!

ASP News, Washington DC – The Red party is becoming increasingly desperate as Coke Classic sags in the polls, down by as much as 7/32 of a percentage point. In an attempt to deflect attention from failed economic policies, Coke Classic has accused Pepsi of fraternizing with COLON. COLON, which stands for “Confused Organization of Liberals for Oligarchy Now” has been active in registering 6.8 trillion people in Los Angeles alone.

“It is obvious that there is voter fraud going on,” said one Coke Classic spokesman.

“What is going on is disenfranchisement,” Pepsi spokesman Diet Coke responded. “Coke Classic doesn’t want your vote to count more than once. He is skewering this election away from the will of illegal aliens, felons, and other up-and-coming Blue candidates. That’s why Coke Classic didn’t pick me—I mean Coke Zero for his running mate. He’s racist against the black can!”

In unrelated news, the Red Party released a YouTube video showing a 1990s Pepsi rally where Pepsi stated: “A colon is not that far behind.” Pundits have supposed the Red Party is going for the irony angle, but as we are objective media personalities we don’t understand it.

ASP NEWS, Toledo – Earlier today, Pepsi made an unscheduled stop in Toledo to talk to random sodas. There he met Grape Soda, who asked him: “Why are you planning on increasing my carbonation?”

Pepsi responded, “I want to spread the carbon around.”

Developing…

ASP NEWS, Toledo – Who is Grape Soda?

That is the question the media will focus on until everyone forgets Pepsi’s poor answer to Grape Soda’s question.

Grape Soda is not who he claims to be. For one thing, his name isn’t really Grape Soda. It’s “Big K Diet Grape Soda.” For another thing, he’s not a real soda. He’s a generic brand. In fact, he only costs $0.70 for two liters! Under Pepsi’s plan, only those sodas which cost more than $2.50 for a two liter bottle would be extra-carbonated.

Further examinations have uncovered the possibility of Grape Soda’s fraudulent portrayal of himself while daring to ask a question Pepsi answered truthfully. Big K Diet Grape Soda had indicated his affiliation with King Soopers while his recently released tax records suggest strong ties with Kroger.

In a press conference yesterday afternoon, Diet Coke commented, “Which is it ‘Grape Soda’? These questions demand an answer – you can’t have it both ways!”

As if that weren’t enough, Sprite also noted, “You can’t spell ‘Grape’ without ‘rape.’”

What does “Grape Soda” know, and when did he know it? Why did Coke Classic plant Grape Soda at an unscheduled Pepsi stop? The media demand answers! We will continue digging until our last latex glove is soiled.

ASP NEWS, Washington DC – The Coke Classic campaign has accused the media of bias due to its kid gloves treatment of Pepsi and its anal examination of Big K Diet Grape Soda, the fake soda who Coke Classic planted to trip up Pepsi.

The media, biased? As if! We aren’t biased if there are no objections to our reporting and after Pepsi gives his acceptance speech on January 20, we will help usher in a new world of fairness via the Fairness Doctrine which guarantees the suppression of views that disagree with us.

It is Coke Classic who is against being fair. That’s just a fact. It’s not biased to report the facts, even if we only report half of them and occasionally retract three quarters of the half we do report. That’s what true, objective journalism is all about.

ASP reporters Travis Johnson and Peter Pike contributed to this report.

Travis Johnson is a freelance writer from Colorado Springs and blogs at http://fumingpew.wordpress.com/.

Peter Pike is the author of the novel Public Transit available on-line and in many black market stores worldwide. His website it http://www.intellectualist.net/.

Johnson and Pike are currently collaborating on a screenplay version of Public Transit. So far, they have finished six pages and consumed fourteen gallons of coffee.

Contra Viabilism

Recently an anonymous poster has chosen to defend the viability criterion of what is required to be a human being. I take that view to be severely flawed for many reasons, not the least of which are these:

Viability = df the ability of the human fetus to live outside the womb, assisted or not, currently set at around 21-22 weeks.

i) Debate over what it is to be a human try to find those necessary or essential characteristics (or properties) such that if the entity under question did not posses said characteristics they would not be the same entity. In other words, we're looking for essential rather than accidental properties. Stated another way, we might put the questions this way: What would have to be true of entity E at all possible worlds W for it to remain E, and what could be false of E at W such that it would still be E? For example, to appeal to Christian presuppositions for purpose of example, if I was not an image bearer of God at W, I could not be a human being. On the other hand, if I lived in Spain rather than America at W, I would still be a human being. In fact, I'd still be me.

ii) Apropos (i), the viability criterion is an accidental property. It's a measure of the sophistication of neonatal life-support systems. Thus, viability is a constantly changing standard of measurement. A preemie born in a hospital would be viable while that same preemie, at another possible world, born in the deepest depths of a jungle, would not be. Thus this view claims that one's location would determine its humanity. But we saw that this was false in (i). (In fact, if the viability thesis is meant to supply what is essential, then the two preemies wouldn't be the same. But this flies in the face of thousands of years of philosophy by assuming that where you're born is somehow essential to who you are.)

iii) Apropos (ii), viability is not a static concept but a relative one. Something is only viable in respects to something else, viz., it's natural environment. Thus, if you shot me into space, I wouldn't be "viable." I couldn't live in that environment. I would still have a fully developed circulatory system, properly functioning brain, etc., yet I couldn't live in space (without a space suit). I would still be a human being. (If you don't like leaving earth, just substitute being dropped off at the North Pole, or under water.)

iv) Apropos (iii), thus we see that the viability criterion for the humanity of the fetus claims that if the fetus was pulled from its natural human environment for that stage of development and it couldn't survive, it would not be human. But we saw that (iii) renders this notion false.

v) Proponents of the viability criterion need to tell us what it is about viability, exactly, that (magically?) transforms the nature of the fetus from a non-human nature to a human nature.

vi) Post-birth infants are not "viable" as they would soon die without the proper shelter and nutrition needed to sustain its life. Thus the viability criterion cannot stave off infanticide.

vii) How is the viability criterion any less arbitrary than arguments for non-humanity of black people? What standard allows one to simply announce that humanity depends on viability?

viii) Suppose a fetus F was not viable at time t1 but became viable at time t2 such that if F were born premature at t2, F would be able to survive (with assistance) outside the womb. Now suppose that F in fact was not born at t2 but developed a condition at t3 such that F would not be viable if born at t3. The viability criterion therefore gives us the highly counter-intuitive conclusion that F was not human at t1, human at t2, and not human again at t3. This would at least mean that F was not the same entity at t1 and t3 as it was at t2. Therefore, the mother actually carried (at least) F1, F2, and F3.

ix) Actually, many preemies are not "viable" in that they need major assistance in living. They are kept in the NICU for weeks at a time, "kept alive by an array of specialized ventilators, intravenous feeding pumps, and advanced diagnostic gear, as well as round-the-clock attention from the hospital staff." In fact, there seems to be no non-arbitrary, relevant difference between life in the NICU and life in the womb (for some of these). See picture:



Given the logic of our Anonymous poster, these babies are not human and thus if I killed one I should, at best, get slapped with a fine, maybe a year or so in the cooler.

Sophisticated Pro-Choice Arguments

JAMES SAID...

The problem with the Right is that they want to extend these protections to recently fertilized eggs. Most of us see no "personhood" in such a thing: there are no "symptoms" of life, no pulse, no heart beat, there isn't even a head. Perhaps if the ideologues dropped the insistence that fetuses be protected from conception, they might get somewhere.

10/19/2008 5:27 PM

Not a person:










A Person:

Reagan and Bush on abortion

Did Reagan and Bush do anything to prevent abortions? Proabortion organizations certainly think so. For example:

********************************************************

On January 22, 2001, on his first business day in office (and the 28th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision establishing a woman's right to an abortion), President George W. Bush re-imposed the Global Gag Rule on the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) population program. This policy restricts foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that receive USAID family planning funds from using their own, non-U.S. funds to provide legal abortion services, lobby their own governments for abortion law reform, or even provide accurate medical counseling or referrals regarding abortion. The 1973 Helms Amendment is a legislative provision that already restricts U.S. funds from being used for these activities.

President Bush's Executive Memorandum directs USAID "to reinstate in full all of the requirements of the Mexico City Policy in effect on January 19, 1993." According to this policy, foreign organizations--often the only health-care providers in remote, rural areas--are prohibited from using their own, non-U.S. funds for:
• providing legal abortions even where a woman's physical or mental health is endangered (the only exceptions are in cases of rape, incest, or where the woman's life is endangered);
• providing advice and information regarding the availability and benefits of abortion and from providing referrals to another health clinic;
• lobbying their own governments to legalize abortion, to maintain current law and oppose restrictions, or to decriminalize abortion; and
• conducting public education campaigns regarding abortion.

In addition, even the provision of services that are "permitted"1 on paper, such as life-saving abortions and post-abortion care, are often curtailed because NGOs fear jeopardizing their funding through any association with abortion. Providers may even be reluctant to dispense emergency contraception--which acts to prevent pregnancy and is not an abortifacient --because of the Global Gag Rule.

The U.S. has been a supporter of international family planning and population assistance since the 1960s. However, in 1984, the Reagan Administration imposed restrictions on U.S. funding for international family planning. The so-called "Mexico City Policy," also known as the Global Gag Rule, prohibited overseas NGOs from receiving U.S. funds if, with their own funds and in accordance with the laws of their own countries, they "perform[ed]" or "actively promote[d] abortion as a method of family planning." Further, the Reagan Administration issued extremely restrictive regulations that interpreted the phrase "abortion as a method of family planning" to mean all abortions, except when performed in cases of rape, incest, or when the life (but not health) of the woman would be endangered if the fetus was carried to term. The Clinton Administration ended the Global Gag Rule in 1993 by executive order.

Since 1995, U.S. congressional foes of family planning and abortion rights have sought to enact funding restrictions similar to the original Global Gag Rule. These ultra-conservative members of Congress inappropriately and unconscionably held payment of U.S. arrears on its UN dues hostage to earlier versions of the Global Gag Rule by attaching riders to bills authorizing the dues payment. In 1999, they forced through a "one-year deal," temporarily re-imposing a modified version of the Global Gag Rule to avoid the looming foreign policy crisis they had created, including pending loss of the U.S. vote in the UN General Assembly. In 2000, Congress and the Clinton Administration eliminated the Global Gag Rule from the FY 2001 appropriations legislation, but withheld the release of international family planning funding until February 15, 2001 to allow the new president to decide whether or not to re-impose the Global Gag Rule. President Bush made the wrong decision.

By stifling public debate and the ability of foreign NGOs to lobby their governments, the Global Gag Rule undermines NGOs' right to exercise freedom of speech.
• Nepal has one of the highest maternal mortality rates in South Asia: 539 women in 100,000 die from pregnancy-related complications (as compared to 7 in 100,000 in the United States). Half of these deaths are caused by unsfe abortion. On September 26, 2002, however, the King of Nepal signed a historic law that legalized abortion on broad grounds.
• Despite the landmark reform of the abortion law, safe abortion services will remain out of reach for many women in Nepal, particularly rural and low-income women. The Bush Administration’s global gag rule will pose an added barrier to ensuring abortion access. The global gag rule will prevent the organizations that receive U.S. family planning assistance from providing or advocating for any aobrtion-related services. These organizations also will not be able to provide counseling or referrals for women to obtain abortion services elsewhere. To provide safe abortion services, these organizations would have to risk bankruptcy and forego U.S. family planning assistance-the largest source of such foreign aid in Nepal. li>
• U.S.-funded NGOs in Russia, where most abortions are legal, cannot meet with governmental officials to express support for policy changes to make legal abortions safer. Nor can they discuss their concerns regarding the negative health impact of a proposed restrictive abortion law in Russia.

http://www.reproductiverights.org/pub_fac_ggrbush.html

Return of the welfare queens

ANONYMOUS SAID:

So you think that showing that poor women are more likely to have abortions proves that programs aimed at reducing poverty would not decrease abortions? For the record, I never said that welfare states reduce the abortion rate. I said that a broad social safety net, access to contraception, and universal health care that covers the staggering costs of pre and post natal care reduce abortions.

Of course women on welfare in this country will be more likely to abort their children! They're the people who suffer most from poverty, and can least afford more children! No welfare recipient in this country is getting the kind of support that would reduce abortions. In fact, I'd argue that our welfare system encourages abortion since in nearly every state the amount of cash benefits per child decreases with every additional child.

When there's not access to contraception, there's little to no safety net, and poor people don't have access to absurdly expensive pre-natal and post-natal care, more women facing unexpected pregnancies will choose abortion.

Because it's not just prenatal and postnatal costs that contribute to the decision to have an abortion. It's the overall cost of raising a child. That price is offset by programs that insure an income, housing, childcare, health care, etc.

She'll have free access to health care, free access to child care, and if she's working, a year of fully paid maternity leave.

i) So Anonymous doesn’t believe in welfare. He just believes in free contraception, free prenatal care, free postnatal care, free health care, free housing, free maternity leave, and free income for poor woman.

ii) Organizations like NOW, NARAL, and Planned Parenthood don’t agree with him that poverty contributes to higher abortion rates. To the contrary, they complain that poverty reduces abortion rates by reducing access to affordable abortion “services.”

iii) Apropos (ii), if the liberals come to power, universal healthcare will subsidize abortion on demand. Hence, that will raise rather than lower the abortion rate.

iv) I also reject his moral extortion, according to which we must subsidize promiscuity lest promiscuous men and women murder their kids. Should we decriminalize murder and bribe potential killers not to commit murder if we give them enough goodies in return? That’s not the proper way to deter homicide.

v) Finally, do you notice anyone missing from his description? He speaks of poor single mothers. Hmm. Where are the fathers?

Indeed, it’s a well-known fact that welfare renders the father financially expendable. So the “solution” which he proposes would perpetuate the cycle of poverty.

My position is not that the Supreme Court strategy only saves a few, while the social net strategy saves many. My position is that the Supreme Court strategy doesn't save ANY, while the social net strategy would save many.

That’s a lie! This is what you initially said:

However, I agree with Reppert that simply mindlessly trying to end abortion by overturning Rowe vs Wade is a spectacularly stupid and utterly failed strategy. It would only turn matters over to the states, and most states outside of the South would keep the practice legal.

So you originally admitted that overturning Roe v. Wade would save lives. You simply limited its effect to Southern states.

Can you name a single abortion that has been prevented by electing Republican presidents in the hopes that, some time during their term, they'll be able to appoint a conservative judge?

Organizations like NOW, NARAL, and Planned Parenthood blame Bush for preventing many abortions by reinstating the “gag” order and cutting off Federal funds for abortion overseas.

I believe that a social safety net can start saving lives NOW. I believe that universal health care can start saving lives NOW. I believe Barack Obama's health care plan will save more unborn children in his first year of office than McCain's supreme court strategy would save if he was president for 8 years.

i) You need to show that Obama’s health care plan is financially sustainable. I don’t share your gullible optimism. And I’m not alone:

http://healthpolicyandmarket.blogspot.com/2008/05/first-year-results-in-massachusetts.html

ii) Even if it were, it would include funding for abortion, which would raise the rate of abortion.

iii) Your position boils down to this: Obama’s health care plan would have to offset all of the additional abortions which result for his aggressive abortion policy.

Some of the highest abortion rates in the world are in South America, where abortion is illegal, but poverty is rampant. And some of the lowest abortion rates in the world are in Western Europe, where abortion is legal, but poverty is rare. I leave it up to you whether you'll draw the obvious conclusion.

Of course this disregards the fact that in Catholic countries frown on contraception as well as abortion.

I'm not for teaching Christian ethics in schools, at least not as a required course, but I think our schools can and should teach sexual ethics that people of all faiths and no faiths would generally agree on.

Yes, let’s have public sex ed courses with a curriculum which the Goth, the atheist, the feminist, the Wahhabist, the skinhead, the sodomite, the skirt chaser, the transgender, the pious Catholic, and the Hassidic Jew can all agree on.

The abortion apologist

Doing his best to ensure that a mother’s womb is the most dangerous place on earth, Reppert is at it again:

http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2008/10/one-issue.html

My arguments have been this.
1) Roe v. Wade will almost certainly not be overturned regardless of who is elected President.

NOW, NARAL, and Planned Parenthood beg to differ.

2) Even if it is overturned, it will not result in many babies being saved through legal restrictions. I would be surprised if any state, even the reddest of the red states, would pass a comprehensive ban on abortion.

Of course, who wants to a save a few babies?

3) Abortion rates rose until the Clinton administration, after which they have steadily decreased. There may be many reasons for that, but one of the has to be the passage of the Familay and Medical Leave Act, which made it illegal for employers to fire employees who took unpaid time off to bear children. Health care reform would be another way in which abortion might be discouraged.

Reppert disregards the fact that Bill Clinton also signed the 1996 Welfare Reform Act into law.

4) I don't see an overwhelming case for the simon-pure pro-life position. I can see both sides of the issue, and some of my moral intuitions suggest that you can't give the same right to life to something that is not conscious that you do to something that is. I'm not coming out as a staunch defender of "a woman's right to choose" and would like to see more restrictive laws on abortion than are presently allowed under Roe.

Some of my moral intuitions tell me that in a lifeboat scenario, a second-rate philosopher is the first passenger we’d throw overboard for the common good.

4) While abortion is an issue that generates a lot of moral passion, other issues, such as slavery, poverty, corporate responsibility, misguided wars, torture, and global warming (or climate change if you prefer that expression) are also moral issues of considerable importance, and they are issues where the President's action have a much greater and more direct effect than in the area of abortion.

Of course, this is only persuasive if you share his ignorant and faddish views on the subject.

So no, I reject the case for a one-issue abortion-based vote. I have made these points a number of times here. If you think this makes me "every baby-butcher's best friend," you should reflect on how many babies have been saved from abortion as a result of 8 years of Reagan, 4 years of Bush I, and 8 years of Bush II. This is a matter that was settled by the one branch of government deliberately set furthest away from the political arena, the judiciary. I'm also convinced that we have not exercised enough leadership in looking for ways to decrease abortion apart from the long arm of the criminal law.

Of course, this is simple-minded.

1. To overturn Roe v. Wade, several factors need to be in play:

i) Openings on SCOTUS

ii) A conservative president who will nominate conservative judges.

iii) A conservative Congress which will confirm conservative nominees.

iv) A cumulative replacement rate at SCOTUS

Bill Clinton set back the prolife cause by nominating liberal judges.

For Reppert to argue that we should vote for a liberal Democrat because Republicans have thus far failed to sufficiently change the composition of the court is truly idiotic since one reason they’ve failed up until now is the election of liberal Democrats who reverse their gains.

2. In addition, there is more to abortion that domestic policy. It also involves foreign policy. Groups like NOW, NARAL, and Planned Parenthood attack Bush because he did reduce abortions by reinstating the “gag order” and cut off funding for “abortion services” oversees.

Of course, that only spared the lives of black and brown babies, which clearly don’t rank very high on Reppert’s scale of values, so as far as he’s concerned, that doesn’t count.

Is abortion a big deal?

Some “Christians” are using the following tactic to justify their support of Obama: reduce opposition to Obama to the issue of abortion, then try to lowball Obama’s position on abortion, lowball the impact of his position on abortion, and lowball the impact of Republican administrations on abortion.

Of course, abortion is hardly the only reason a conservative would have to oppose Obama. Speaking for myself, I think that Obama is

wrong on taxation
wrong on counterterrorism
wrong on nuclear disarmament
wrong on judicial philosophy
wrong on immigration
wrong on sodomite marriage
wrong on eugenics
wrong on free speech
wrong on gun-control
wrong on school choice
wrong on sex ed
wrong on public housing
wrong on healthcare
wrong on environmentalism
wrong on voter fraud
wrong on hate crimes
wrong on racial profiling
wrong on sentencing
wrong on capital punishment
wrong on foreign aid
wrong on Social Security
wrong on quotas

However, “Christian” supporters of Obama have decided to single out abortion, so I’ll focus on abortion. They accuse opponents of Obama of “smearing” Obama and telling “lies” about his position.

So, for purposes of this post, I’ll disregard all hostile sources and confine myself to sources sympathetic to his candidacy.

If you want information on the agenda of the Democrat Party, an obvious place to go would be its national platform.

If you want information on Obama’s position, as well as comparative data on the impact of a Democrat or Republican regime on national abortion policy, and obvious place to go would be major pro-abortion organizations, which keep a record of these things.

Also keep in mind that these are the organizations whose endorsement Obama has courted and received. Their agenda is his agenda.

2008 Democrat National Platform

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/8a738445026d1d5f0f_bcm6b5l7a.pdf

Obama

NARAL Pro-Choice America PAC endorses Sen. Barack Obama for President!

Sen. Obama is fully pro-choice. In his own words:

"A woman's ability to decide how many children to have and when, without interference from the government, is one of the most fundamental rights we possess. It is not just an issue of choice, but equality and opportunity for all women.

"I have consistently advocated for reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President. I oppose any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's ruling in this case.

"I believe we must work together to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies. I support legislation to expand access to contraception, health information, and preventative services to help reduce unintended pregnancies. That is why I co-sponsored the Prevention First Act of 2007, which will increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education that teaches both abstinence and safe sex methods. It will also end insurance discrimination against contraception, improve awareness about emergency contraception, and provide compassionate assistance to rape victims.

"Finally, I support the enactment and enforcement of laws that help prevent violence, intimidation, and harassment directed at reproductive health providers and their patients."
[Statement submitted on NARAL Pro-Choice America's request, May 14, 2007]
More on Sen. Obama's pro-choice record

Voting Record: Sen. Obama received the following scores on NARAL Pro-Choice America's Congressional Record on Choice.

2007: 100 percent
2006: 100 percent
2005: 100 percent

Public Statements about Choice:

A selection of Sen. Obama's public statements on this issue is below.

• "Thirty-five years after the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, it's never been more important to protect a woman's right to choose... Throughout my career, I've been a consistent and strong supporter of reproductive justice, and have consistently had a 100% pro-choice rating with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America... I believe in and have supported common-sense solutions like increasing access to affordable birth control to help prevent unintended pregnancies... As President, I will improve access to affordable health care and work to ensure that our teens are getting the information and services they need to stay safe and healthy."
[From a statement by Sen. Obama on the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, January 22, 2008. Full statement is available here:

http://www.barackobama.com/2008/01/22/obama_statement_on_35th_annive.php]

• "You know, I think that most Americans recognize that this is a profoundly difficult issue for the women and families who make these decisions. They don't make them casually. And I trust women to make these decisions in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy."
[Transcript from Democratic Presidential Debate in South Carolina, MSNBC, April 26, 2007.]

• "I strongly disagree with today's Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women. As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman's medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient. I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman's right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women."
[Statement from Sen. Obama on Supreme Court Decision upholding Federal Abortion Ban, April 18, 2007, http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/04/obama_decision.html (accessed May 4, 2007).]

• "I explained my belief that few women made the decision to terminate a pregnancy casually; that any pregnant woman felt the full force of the moral issues involved and wrestled with her conscience when making that decision; that I feared a ban on abortion would force women to seek unsafe abortions, as they had once done in this country."
[Barack Obama, excerpt from The Audacity of Hope published in Time Magazine, October 15, 2006, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1546298,00.html (accessed April 28, 2008).]

http://www.naral.org/elections/statements/obama.html

Bush

President Bush, with the enthusiastic support of his anti-choice base, has waged a tireless war on women's reproductive rights and personal privacy.

• Bush has nominated far-right conservatives to the Supreme Court and lower federal courts who are determined to roll back reproductive rights.
• He doubled the funding for unproven "abstinence-only" programs that deny young people accurate information on how to protect themselves.
• President Bush's FDA appointees overruled medical experts to deny women over-the-counter access to the "morning-after" pill.
• Bush cut off family-planning aid for clinics abroad. He continues to limit access to reproductive-health care at home.

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/issues/bush-administration/

On his first business day in office in 2001, President George W. Bush reinstated the restrictive "global gag rule." Under this Reagan-era prohibition, no U.S. family planning assistance funding can be given to organizations that provide abortion services, offer counseling and referral for abortion care, or advocate legal abortion access in their own countries — even if they do so with their own funds.

In 2007, the U.S. Congress demonstrated that it was on our side: the Senate voted to fully repeal the global gag rule, and the House voted to allow donations of contraceptives. However, both of these provisions were dropped when President Bush threatened to veto them.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/issues-action/birth-control/global-gag-rule-21019.htm

McCain

McCain-Palin is the most anti-choice presidential campaign ever. They support:
• A ban on abortion with no exceptions for rape or incest;
• The overturn of Roe v. Wade; and
• Anti-choice judges.

http://action.prochoiceamerica.org/site/PageServer?pagename=McCainPalinVideo

• McCain on the Issues - Sen. McCain is wrong about a woman's right to choose... and birth control, sex education, and more. Read about McCain's statements and votes on these important issues.

• In Their Own Words - Think that the McCain-Palin ticket is moderate when it comes to a woman's right to choose? Think again. Find out what McCain and Palin have said about choice.

• Why the Anti-Choice Movement Supports the McCain-Palin Ticket - We can agree on one thing with the anti-choice movement: McCain and Palin are on their side. See what they've said about the ticket.

• See the Real McCain and Palin - Watch our videos about McCain and Palin's extreme anti-choice views.

• In the News - Check out what the media is saying about the McCain-Palin ticket. Read the latest stories and our press releases.

• More about McCain - Many voters are unaware of Sen. McCain's 25-year record of anti-choice votes. Find out more about McCain's record.

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/meet-the-real-mccain/learn_more.html

A new administration and new Congress could act quickly to reverse some of the damage done by the Bush administration and the right wing to women's reproductive heath policies and programs. Just for starters:

Reverse the Global Gag Rule -- The new president, without the consent of Congress, can and should revoke this heinous policy, which prohibits U.S. funding for any international health program that (using its own funds) provides or even discusses abortion services or lobbies their own governments on abortion policy. On Bill Clinton's first day as president, he took action to overturn this rule, but it was reinstated by George W. Bush. Studies of developing countries show that reproductive health programs have been decimated as a result of the loss of U.S. funds.

End Hyde Restriction -- For women who depend on government subsidized health care, the federal budget has prohibited funding for abortion. The new president's budget to Congress should include Medicaid abortion funding for poor women, and restrictions that create great hardship for low-income women -- including the Hyde Amendment -- must be repealed.

Stop Abstinence Funding; Support Comprehensive Sex Education -- The next administration must halt the $183 million taxpayer giveaway to dangerous, ineffective abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, and replace them with medically-accurate, age-appropriate sex education. Long-term studies have shown abstinence-only programs are ineffective in delaying sexual initiation and may play a role in the widespread incidence of sexually-transmitted infections among adolescents.

http://www.nowfoundation.org/news/fall-2008/repro_rights.html

Freedom of Choice Act

Measure Would Sweep Away Hundreds of Anti-Abortion Laws, Policies

In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's regressive ruling on April 18 in the two abortion ban cases, women's rights advocates in Congress have introduced the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) S. 1173/H.R. 1964. This legislation, if enacted, would override the Court's decision in the two cases, Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood and Gonzales v. Carhart, in which the court upheld vaguely-written bans that could prohibit the most commonly used and safest abortion procedures after 12 weeks of pregnancy.

In upholding these bans, five conservative Supreme Court justices have effectively overruled a core element of Roe v. Wade that had been reinforced in many Court decisions: the requirement that legislative restrictions on abortion must contain an exception to protect the woman's health. The gravity of the Court's decision as it relates to the health of all women of child-bearing age is immense. It is a giant leap toward overturning Roe and, at the same time, signals approval to the state legislatures with anti-abortion majorities to move forward with abortion ban bills that would go into effect when, and if, Roe falls completely.

With the two recent Bush-appointed justices—John Roberts and Samuel A. Alito, Jr.—and their anti-abortion-rights colleagues Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy, it seems only a matter of time that Roe will be overturned by the high court. States will then be allowed to re-criminalize abortion; doctors and their patients would face the threat of criminal investigation, prosecution, and even imprisonment. Doctors will not risk the consequences, and women's reproductive health clinics will close. We all know what will take their place.

The Freedom of Choice Act, if adopted into law, will restore the reproductive rights recognized in 1973 in Roe v. Wade and in Doe v. Bolton, before Congress, state legislatures and courts eroded these rights. Since Roe, hundreds of anti-reproductive-rights measures have been enacted by state legislatures and more are being considered with each legislative session. The sum total of these erosions, combined with extremists' clinic violence, have narrowed women's access to reproductive health services. Indeed, in many parts of the country and for many low-income women, the right to an abortion is meaningless for lack of providers and financial assistance.

Not wasting a moment, the Supreme Court on April 23 directed the lower courts to review earlier decisions that had overturned state abortion bans in Virginia and Missouri because they lacked exceptions to protect the health of the woman. Because the Supreme Court's April 18 decision discounts the necessity of a health exception, legal experts predict that the new reviews will result in the circuit courts upholding those state bans.

The Freedom of Choice Act would put a stop to this assault. We must work toward a future when there will be a feminist president in the White House and a supportive majority in the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives!

http://www.now.org/issues/abortion/070430foca.html

SCOTUS

The Supreme Court of the United States plays an important role in protecting and preserving our civil rights, most especially when the rights of a minority are threatened. Over our country's history, the Supreme Court's decisions have often served to protect civil rights and liberties by interpreting existing laws and mandating their enforcement or by nullifying laws it deems unconstitutional. Just two examples of the powerful role of the court are the Brown v. Board of Education (1954) decision in which the court deemed school segregation unconstitutional and Roe v. Wade (1973), which recognized a woman's right to abortion. Just as the court has expanded rights, it also has, at times, imposed restrictions on them. The court's impact changes with its composition, which is why NOW pays such close attention to nominations to the bench.

http://www.now.org/issues/judicial/supreme/

In the joined cases of Gonzales v. Carhart and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissenting opinion that eloquently and thoroughly states the errors of the majority decision. Below are excerpts from her opinion. Download her 25-page dissenting opinion here (PDF).

Today's decision is alarming.... It tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). It blurs the line, firmly drawn in Casey, between previability and postviability abortions. And, for the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman's health.
I dissent from the Court's disposition. Retreating from prior rulings that abortion restrictions cannot be imposed absent an exception safeguarding a woman's health, the Court upholds an Act that surely would not survive under the close scrutiny that previously attended state-decreed limitations on a woman's reproductive choices.

Thus, legal challenges to undue restrictions on abortion procedures do not seek to vindicate some generalized notion of privacy; rather, they center on a woman's autonomy to determine her life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature.

Instead, the Court deprives women of the right to make an autonomous choice, even at the expense of their safety. This way of thinking reflects ancient notions about women's place in the family and under the Constitution—ideas that have long since been discredited.

The Court's hostility to the right Roe and Casey secured is not concealed. Though today's opinion does not go so far as to discard Roe or Casey, the Court, differently composed than it was when we last considered a restrictive abortion regulation, is hardly faithful to our earlier invocations of "the rule of law" and the "principles of stare decisis."

In sum, the notion that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act furthers any legitimate governmental interest is, quite simply, irrational. The Court's defense of the statute provides no saving explanation. In candor, the Act, and the Court's defense of it, cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this Court — with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives.

http://www.now.org/issues/judicial/supreme/ginsburg_dissent.html

The Hyde Amendment

Everywoman, regardless ofher financial circumstances, should have the freedom to decide whether to continue a pregnancy and the ability to carryout those decisions. Yet, low-income women often are subject to discriminatory policies that restrict access to abortion services. For example, the Medicaid program, which provides federal and state funds for medical care for low-income individuals, covers necessary health care related topregnancy.98 However, a provision of federal law known as the Hyde Amendment prohibits federal Medicaid funds from paying for most abortions, even for women with serious health problems.99 In its current form, the Hyde Amendment bans federal funding for abortions except in cases of rape, incest or in some cases of life endangerment.100 To rectify this inequity, states may choose to fund abortions for low-income women with their own state revenues, and some states have done so.

Currently, 16states fund most or all abortions for Medicaid-eligible women, while the remaining 34 states severely restrict funding for abortion.

The three primary goals of this policy are:

(1) to remove the financial barriers low-income
women face in obtaining abortion services;
(2) to ensure the availability of abortion services; and
(3) to highlight that abortion is a vital component of comprehensive reproductive
health care.

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/assets/files/Breaking-Barriers-Part-5.pdf

Federal Abortion Ban

On April 18, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the first-ever federal law banning an abortion procedure and gave politicians the green light to interfere in the private health care decisions of women and families. The federal abortion ban case may have been decided on April 18, 2007, but its history reaches back for years.

The federal abortion ban criminalizes abortions in the second trimester of pregnancy that doctors say are often the safest and best to protect women's health. The ban affects more than just the women who need second-trimester abortions and the doctors who care for them. The Supreme Court's decision retreats from more than 30 years of precedent that says women's health must be the paramount concern in laws that restrict abortion access. The decision has serious implications for the future of reproductive rights.

Passed by Congress and signed by President George W. Bush in 2003, the federal abortion ban is a wake-up call: We must stand up to politicians who want to restrict a woman's ability to make her own health care decisions in consultation with her doctor.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/issues-action/abortion/abortion-ban-home-14345.htm

State Abortion Restrictions

Attempts to ban abortion at the state level are part of an ongoing anti-choice legal strategy to deny women their right to determine whether and when to have children. As state politicians across the country try to restrict access to abortion, women are paying the price. These laws hurt women's health and endanger their safety.

Already state legislatures have passed or proposed many dangerous requirements:

• So-called "counseling sessions" for women seeking abortion, which often mandate a woman be told biased or false information about the procedure.
• Unnecessary waiting periods — sometimes a whole day — from the time a woman first seeks an abortion to when she may undergo the procedure, even though delays may cause financial and other hardships on women.
• Onerous and unnecessary regulations on abortion providers — for example, requiring that hallways in a health center measure a certain width — with the goal of shutting down abortion providers when they are unable to comply.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/issues-action/abortion/state-abortion-restrictions-19943.htm

http://www.naral.org/issues/abortion/access-to-abortion/refusal-clauses-and-counseling-bans/

Refusal Clauses

State and federal lawmakers have crafted a complex set of laws designed to deny women medically necessary information, referrals, and services.

Contrary to anti-choice claims, no federal law forces any specific provider to offer abortion services against its will. There is a delicate balance between the rights of both patients and of providers, and NARAL Pro-Choice America does not advocate forcing anyone to provide abortion services against his or her will. Refusal clauses and counseling bans upset this balance, endanger women's health, and undermine patients' rights to get the care and information they need. Although carefully crafted refusal clauses may be acceptable in some circumstances to protect individual medical providers, broad refusal clauses unnecessarily deny women medically necessary information.

Refusal clauses permit a broad range of individuals and/or institutions — including hospitals, hospital employees, health care providers, pharmacists, employers, and insurers — to refuse to provide, pay for, counsel, or even refer for medical treatment that they personally oppose. Counseling bans, also known as "gag rules," prohibit health-care providers including individuals, under certain circumstances, from counseling or referring women for abortion care, preventing doctors from treating their patients responsibly and severely limiting women's ability to make informed decisions.

Women and their health care providers – not politicians – should be free to make private medical decisions.

http://www.naral.org/issues/abortion/access-to-abortion/refusal-clauses-and-counseling-bans/

Every day in America, women are forced to play the lottery when they walk into their neighborhood pharmacies and ask for emergency contraception (EC) or other methods of birth control. Some pharmacies will not stock contraceptives. Some even have policies that allow employees to refuse to dispense EC - and to turn women away.

In response to Planned Parenthood massive grassroots advocacy campaign, "Fill My Pills Now," a number of major drugstore chains have reversed their original policies and put women's health first. CVS, Eckerd, Medicine Shoppe, Rite Aid, Walgreens, and, most recently, Wal-Mart are committed to Planned Parenthood-approved policies that guarantee women are able to get their birth control in-store, without discrimination, without delay, and without judgment.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/issues-action/birth-control/pharmacy-refusals-21016.htm

Emergency contraception is also known as emergency birth control, backup birth control, the morning after pill, and by the brand name Plan B. The most commonly used kind of emergency contraception is Plan B.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/emergency-contraception-morning-after-pill-4363.htm

Parental Consent

Mandatory parental-involvement (consent and notice) laws do not solve the problem of troubled family communication; they only exacerbate a potentially dangerous situation.

In some circumstances, teens facing a crisis pregnancy feel compelled to travel to another state where there is a less stringent parental involvement law or no such law at all, to avoid involving their parents and maintain their privacy. In the most dire circumstances, some pregnant young women who fear telling their parents may feel so desperate that they resort to illegal or self-induced abortions that may result in death. Yet, despite the severe consequences, 36 states currently enforce laws that require a minor to obtain the consent of, or notify, an adult— typically a parent—prior to an abortion.1 And seven other states have minors’ access laws that are either enjoined or not enforced.2

Congress has considered two pieces of legislation to impose draconian criminal parental-involvement laws on every state in the country. The first, deceptively called the “Child Custody Protection Act,” would make criminals out of caring and loving adults—including grandparents, adult siblings, and religious counselors—who accompany a teen out-of-state for abortion care if the home state parental involvement law has not been met.3 The second, called the “Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act,” would additionally impose an impossibly complex patchwork of parental-involvement laws on women and doctors across the country, in addition to the CCPA provisions, making it virtually impossible for young women to access abortion services in another state.4 Both measures would threaten young women’s health and deny them the support and guidance they need from responsible and caring adults.

• The American Medical Association takes the position that: “Physicians
should not feel or be compelled to require minors to involve their parents
before deciding whether to undergo an abortion. . . . [M]inors should
ultimately be allowed to decide whether parental involvement is
appropriate.”7

• The American Academy of Pediatrics also opposes parental-involvement
laws: “Legislation mandating parental involvement does not achieve the
intended benefit of promoting family communication but it does increase
the risk of harm to the adolescent by delaying access to appropriate
medical care. . . . [M]inors should not be compelled or required to involve
their parents in their decisions to obtain abortions, although they should
be encouraged to discuss their pregnancies with their parents and other
responsible adults.”8

Parental-consent and notice laws endanger young women’s health by forcing some women—even those from healthy, loving families—to turn to illegal or self-induced abortion, to delay the procedure and increase the medical risk, or to bear a child against their will.

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/assets/files/Abortion-Access-to-Abortion-Young-Women-Parental-Consent.pdf

The "Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act" would impose an impossibly complex patchwork of parental-involvement laws on women and doctors across the country with the goal to curb young women’s access to private, confidential health services. It would prohibit anyone other than a parent, including a grandparent, aunt, adult sibling, or religious counselor, from accompanying a young woman across state lines for an abortion if the home state’s parental-involvement law has not been met.

The bill proposes a variety of new mandates on women, families, and doctors. Among other things:

(1) The bill forces doctors to learn and enforce 49 other states’ laws, under the threat of fines and prison sentences.
(2) In many cases, CIANA forces young women to comply with two states’ parental-involvement mandates.
(3) In some cases CIANA requires a doctor to notify a young woman’s parents in another state before abortion services can be provided.
(4) In some cases, even if a parent travels with his or her daughter to obtain abortion care, the doctor must still give “notice” to the parent and wait 24 hours before providing the care.

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/issues/abortion/access-to-abortion/young-women/child-interstate-abortion-notification-act.html

Legal History

FORWARD PROGRESS:
1965 — Griswold v. Connecticut_The Supreme Court nullified a Connecticut statute prohibiting the use of birth control by married persons, arguing that the right to marital privacy protects the access of married couples to contraceptives.
1972 — Eisenstadt v. Baird_The Court struck down a law prohibiting the distribution of birth control to unmarried adults.
1973 — Roe v. Wade_By a vote of 7-2, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against a Texas law prohibiting abortions not necessary to save the woman's life, extending the fundamental right to privacy to a woman's decision to choose abortion.
1976 — Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth_The Court ruled against a Missouri statute that would force a married woman to obtain her husband's approval before getting an abortion and ruled against a written parental consent requirement for minors.
THE BACKLASH & THE RESPONSE:
1977 — Maher v. Roe_The Supreme Court upheld a Connecticut ban on public funding for abortions, with the exception of abortions that were "medically necessary."
1980 — Harris v. McRae_The Supreme Court upheld the Hyde amendment, which prohibits the federal Medicaid funding of abortions not necessary to preserve the woman's life.
1989 — Webster v. Reproductive Health Services_The court upheld a Missouri law prohibiting the use of public employees and public facilities for the purpose of performing abortions that were not medically necessary.
1992 — Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey_The Supreme Court, while refusing to overturn Roe, nevertheless upheld a laundry list of abortion restrictions (parental consent, anti-abortion counseling, and a waiting period) only invalidating spousal notification.
1994 — Congress enacts the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act.
1994 — NOW v. Scheidler_The Supreme Court affirmed NOW's right to use federal anti-racketeering laws against anti-abortion terrorists who organize others to use fear, force and violence to shut down women's health clinics where abortions are performed. The Court is now reviewing the nationwide injunction we won in 1999, which was upheld by the 4th Circuit.
2000 — The FDA approves mifepristone (RU-486), following a 16-year struggle by reproductive rights activists to have the safe and effective abortion drug approved. Opponents made repeated efforts to prevent approval and distribution of mifepristone and are continuing efforts through a petition to the FDA to have the drug withdrawn.
2001 — The Bush administration reinstates the global "gag" rule that was first adopted in 1984 by the Reagan administration and later lifted when President Clinton came into office. The "gag" rule is an anti-free speech and anti-democratic policy which has caused 430 organizations in 50 countries to stop performing abortions or speaking about abortion laws in order to qualify for U.S. funding. Over 80,000 women around the world die each year from unsafe and illegal abortions and hundreds of thousands suffer complications from unsafe abortions.
2002 — The Bush administration tries to install a right wing, religious ideologue, who has led efforts to get the FDA to reverse approval of mifepristone, as head of the FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee.
2003 — Congress passes and Bush signs the so-called "Partial Birth" Abortion Ban—the first federal ban on an abortion procedure since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. Bush signs the bill, which does not include an exception to preserve a woman's health, while surrounded by a group of smiling men.
2004 — The House of Representatives passes the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2003, which would for the first time establish in federal law a fetus as a legal "person," with individual rights

http://www.now.org/issues/abortion/roe30/timeline.html