Obama the Moderate??? (Part 2)

In August, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) weighed in with a proposed regulation to extend and solidify existing legal conscience protections for healthcare providers who are opposed to abortion. On the surface, the HHS efforts would seem innocent enough, as it largely clarifies how existing conscience-protection laws will be implemented. But the abortion industry was very threatened by this proposed regulation. Their fear is that a clear statement on conscience would enable the majority of practitioners to divorce themselves entirely from the abortion culture. For this reason, abortion’s defenders came out swinging. In September, twenty-seven Democratic U.S. senators and one independent sent a letter to HHS secretary Mike Leavitt that claimed the regulation would damage “the healthcare needs of women.” (Incidentally, senators Barack Obama and Joe Biden were among the signatories.)

Obama the Moderate???

Though Obama promises to run the national administration from the middle, he has promised to pass the Freedom of Choice Act which would over turn all of the state's modest restrictions on abortion. It would also provide federal funds for abortion, and penalize hospitals that do not commit abotions.

A New Day for Pro Lifers

One week after settling into the realization of the now unstoppable fact of an Obama presidency, it is clear that the pro-life movement will face much greater obstacles to the legislation of sanctity of life issues.

It is more apparent now than perhaps ever that the pro life community will have to work on changing hearts--changing the culture.

John Jay Hughes makes the following observation...

In a notable pre-election speech in St. Louis, former governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee spoke about three legal innovations which he had witnessed in his adult lifetime: limitations on smoking, requirement of access to public places for the handicapped, and requirement of seat belts for drivers and passengers of automobiles. In each case, Huckabee pointed out, people were first persuaded that the proposed change was beneficial. Then, laws were enacted to mandate the change. Pro-lifers need to heed this lesson. For too long we have been demanding the passage of laws which, though happily supported by a growing number of our fellow citizens, still fall short of the acceptance needed to make them effective.

No Argument Against Death

Last Tuesday Washington voters legalized assisted suicide with a 58-42 majority. Why have they done this at such a time that when medicine has made such great advances to deal with the pain and discomfort that comes from terminal or debilitating illness.

Perhpas it reflects a growing nihilism in our culture. Perhaps we have no argument against death.

Executive Orders???

As Barack Obama has become our new president, the news tells us that he will immediately, upon innaugaration, use "executive orders" to enact his policy priorities. (e.g., more funding for embryonic stem cell research) My question is...where does the president receive the authority to write executuve orders??? I thought he was limited by the powers of the legislative branch.

These, of course, have come from the evolution of American history, stemming in the tradition of Lincoln's Emmancipation Proclamation and Roosovelt's New Deal policies. The president has been granted through changes in the government far more "imperial" powers that the Constitution grants.

Sally Thomas says that young adults from ages 18-24 are not buying what is offered from our "cultural cany shop" which offers access through iphones classic films to ancient texts. But few are turning on to it.

Literary reader rates, Thomas informs us, have declined by 17 percentage points since 1982. This does not represent a temporary cultual shift, but an avalanche of social change. This would be easy to dismiss, except...

...were not already so evident...interviewees, from the “Jaywalking” segment of The Tonight Show, who don’t know where the pope lives (“England?”) or the tenure of a Supreme Court justice (“I’m guessing four years?”), or the title of any classic work of literature.

For Capitalism

R.R. Reno argues that there is still important that we put forward the moral argument for capitalism. This is especially true now that we have elected a president who will emphasize the failures and limitations of capitalism.



Reno goes back to John Locke who argued from British common law that property ownership is a sacred and ancient right. Property creates a "zone of freedom" for the individual. The political will of the state finds its limits outside the boundaries of the property owner. Property gives us the arena for status and power seperate from political encroachment and control.

Well said...