Political CommenTerry

Is the President Usurping Women’s Reproductive Decisions?

Before leaving office, President George W. Bush apparently plans to sign an executive order that will expand the rights of doctors, healthcare workers, and pharmacists to refuse to provide patients with various services and treatments, based on their own moral and religious beliefs. This will likely involve procedures such as abortion and artificial insemination and medications such as birth control pills and the so-called “morning after” pill. The uproar from women’s groups has already begun.

They claim that this is an attempt by Bush to usurp their rights to make their own reproductive decisions. They say this would deny them the services and medications they want and need.  But is this really the case? I say they’re making a fallacious argument. In reality, no one is denying them squat. Just because a woman can’t force a given doctor to perform an abortion and a given pharmacist to fill a prescription for birth control pills doesn’t mean she wouldn’t be able to get them. There are plenty of doctors and pharmacists who would be more than willing to oblige.

Also, this is not a matter of picking on women, as many of them would have us believe. This order will also allow medical professionals to refuse to prescribe or fill prescriptions for men’s erectile dysfunction therapies such as Viagra and Cialis, for example.

If I were a doctor, I would take full advantage of this right to choose and would not discriminate against either gender. I would not prescribe birth control to anyone (male or female) who was not married. Why would single people need birth control anyway? In addition, I would not do abortions except in cases of rape, non-consensual incest, or when the life or health of the mother would be in danger without one. I would only do artificial insemination procedures for married couples and only when they could not have a child any other way – and the sperm would have to come from the husband, not some stranger. Also, I would prescribe stuff like Viagra or Cialis only for married men.

Those who criticize this order are being disingenuous and hypocritical. Most of them talk the talk about choice but it’s obviously a one-way street for them. They strongly defend a woman’s right to choose but do not want to afford doctors and other medical workers the same. If we’re going to have true choice in this country, then it has to work both ways.

And what about those who are always screaming about religious freedom and the separation of church and state?  They are also being hypocritical when they criticize this order. Forcing people to do something that goes against their religion is a blatant imposition on their religious freedom. And when the government is doing the forcing, it’s a clear violation of the First Amendment. I guess, to some people, it’s okay for the government to bully religion, as long it never works the other way around.

Should a White Person Get Hillary’s Senate Seat?

Now that Hillary Clinton is set to become the next Secretary of State, who should New York Gov. David Patterson choose to replace her in the U.S. Senate? What if a white congressman from New York insisted that Patterson select a white person because Hillary is white? I bet there would be outrage from all parts, and rightfully so.

However, Illinois Congressman Bobby Rush, a former member of the Black Panthers, is pulling a similar stunt and few seem to be complaining. He says Illinois’ governor (possibly the successor of current governor Rod Blagojevich, who is now facing federal corruption charges) needs to select a black person to move into the vacated Senate seat of President-elect Barack Obama.

His rationale? Obama is black, so therefore his replacement must be black. That’s because, in his view, a white person couldn’t possibly carry on Obama’s Senate agenda and be true to his legacy the way a black person could. Rush is not merely suggesting that Obama be succeeded in the Senate by an African-American, he’s demanding it. He’s even launching a petition drive.

I find it rather ironic that Rep. Rush’s race bating comes in the wake of one of the most historic presidential elections in the history of our republic. Obama’s election shattered the political glass ceiling for black people in America and demonstrated that race is no longer a major consideration for most Americans when they go to the polls.

But Rush appears to want to have it both ways. While acknowledging the momentous significance of Obama’s victory, Rush seems to still view race as a primary determinant of how one will conduct himself or herself in public office. So much for Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream that people “will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

Of course, all of this could soon become a moot point if Blagojevich is not removed from office and refuses to resign. Since one of the two corruption allegations against him involves his supposed offering of Obama's Senate seat to the highest bidder, Illinois lawmakers are likely to enact legislation to strip him of his authority to pick Obama's successor and give that decision to the state's voters in the form of a special election. However, that still wouldn't make Congressman Rush's demands any less egregious.

No matter how the decision is ultimately made, the most qualified available candidate should be selected to serve out the remainder of Obama’s Senate term, regardless of that person’s race, ethnic background, gender, or religious affiliation. As a nation, we’ve taken such a giant leap forward. Now is no time to be turning back.

The Problem with God-on-Our-Side Politics

Although I adamantly oppose abortion and gay marriage, I'm a little leery of some of the folks who share my social conservative views. I’m referring to those politically-self-assured, it’s-all-black-and-white, God-is-a-Republican, fundamentalist type of people who insist that almost every national election is a battle for the heart and soul of America.

For one thing, people like that tend to take on an "end justifies the means" type of attitude. They know they are right and that God is on their side, so He surely wouldn't mind a little stretching of the truth – or even a little outright lying – to bring about His will on earth. And He will certainly overlook the misdeeds of the candidates who are on his side. After all, everyone is human, right?

Of course, those who are against Him will be held accountable for every single peccadillo in their life. And woe to the guys on the other side who have had associations with shady characters in the past. But what about some of the folks on their side who have associated with bad people? Well, come on now, that's okay because they are the good guys and gals and are therefore above being tainted by such associations.

In addition, this "God is on our side" assurance tends to foster a sense of paranoia. If you are not for them, you are against them, they feel. Likewise, if you are not for God, you are against Him, right? Then it becomes okay to hurt people who are a threat to their cause. After all, the forces of the "enemy" are just dangerous, they're scary, they're terrorists, … they're baby killers! They must be put in their place or even eliminated, if need be – before it's too late!

This kind of rhetoric, of course, has the potential to incite mob-like behavior. Remember the cries of “Terrorist!” and “Kill him!” in reference to Barack Obama at some of the John McCain-Sarah Palin rallies this year? That's why one should never be too sure about his or her own rightness on political issues. It can get ugly.