The Difference Between Infantaside and Abortion

You are probably seeing this article in your Google search because you misspelled "infanticide."

This posting is only slightly related to the title. On Friday Obama signed an executive order reinstating funding for groups that perform or provide information regarding abortion overseas. Reversing the "Mexico City Policy" of George Bush and the right wing religious extremists that supported him. Editorials across the nation declare that this has inflamed the national furor over abortion again, but this was the anniversary of Roe v. Wade and those people had their undies in a twist for this day in advance.



It is really upsetting to me that the national abortion debate never rises above our worst and most base instincts. People on both sides straw man each others position's and are disrespectful of their opponents ideology to the point of deliberately lying to their own supporters. What is most interesting to me is that the Supreme Court has heard some well thought out policy arguments in its handling of the issue and it is unfortunate that some of these thoughts don't trickle down into the national debate. For instance the supreme court ruled a law criminalizing use of contraception out of respect for the dignity of family and marriage and the privacy of marital intimacy. Kind of throws a clog in the pro-family rhetoric the right wing slings about.

When it comes to women in the workplace and abortion I feel stupid for never putting two and two together until I read the opinion of The Court in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey.

The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.

505 U.S. 833, 833 (1992) Hurrr I'm a durrr. Given the nature of the glass ceiling and the thinly veiled questions women get in job interviews regarding whether they are "planning to have a family", and the correlation between attitudes regarding abortion and attitudes regarding women in the workplace, I can't believe it took the Supreme Court to point out this conclusion to me.

Election Reform

I just want to point out an issue that is only tangentally related to this article. Election reform is a real issue. The Republican party in Ohio was found guilty of interfearing with the last presidential election. And Ohio being the key state you would think that would have brought the results into question. As usual noone payed it any mind. The Republicans are mindfull that there is at least nominal public outcry for reform of the electoral process after indecision 2000. Its even been suggested the UN observe our elections like would be done in some african dictatorship, which is a tremendous embarassment for the country that is supposed to lead the free world.

The Republican solution is of the type of double speak we have come to expect from the Red Side in the last 7 years. They move to replace old outmoaded vote counting processes with newer severely insecure voting machines. (the manufacturer of which is a heavy donor to the Republican party) They call this effort to make the voting process less transparent and more prone to interfearence "reform." Thats one type of double speak.

At the same time they also persue voter fraud through the "real ID" program and state laws requiring one present an ID when showing up to vote. This cuts down on the numbers of elderly, poor, and minoritys who vote. They just happen to mostly vote Democratic.
http://www.mlive.com/elections/fljournal/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1193669477242340.xml&coll=5
Also, actual voter fraud that can be countered by requiring an ID, like a single person voting more than once, or people voting multiple times as different people, tends to favor Democrats. This was an issue during the Justice Department firings of 8 US Attorneys. The US Attorneys were instructed to persue Democrats involved in this type of voter fraud, 8 refused the improper interferance and were terminated. But noone cares about the intracacies of justice, its not sexy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/29/nyregion/29real.html

Affirmative Action

When seeing any criticism of affrimative action many people will automatically assume it has some kind of basis in racism. Even though this article is being reported by Fox the professor being quoted is actually trying to produce a better result. His basic argument, if I dont get it wrong, is that affirmative action puts students in schools that are more difficult and competitive than they are qualified to attend but if they went to another law school they might be more likely to succeed.
The first obvious attack on this is that the professor is implying that black students are too stupid to attend the best law schools. I am prepaired to give this professor the benefit of the doubt and point out he is probably intending to say that those students propelled by affirmative action tend to be mismatched with the schools they get into.