A Game: Quotes from Morality and Politics

Here is the game, I will provide two quotes, you guess of who said it or where it is contained. I’ll provide the answer and explanation.

#1 “Existing law is clearly not doing enough to protect the youngest, smallest, most vulnerable members of our society.”

ANSWER: Was that Rick Santorum or Pat Robertson again? No. Democratic Assemblywoman from California, Sally Lieber. And no, she was not discussing the latest atrocities of infanticide promoted by Barack Obama and his failure to support the Infants Born Alive Bill. Nor was she discussing the frailty and most vulnerable members of society who have not passed through the birth canal. She made those comments in support of a California bill that will prevent spanking of children under three-years-old. The bill seeks to prevent people from “willfully” inflicting “unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering” on a child. Yeah, I guess that reasoning applies to corporal punishment. Why not abortion?

#2 “The use of an implement, including, but not limited to, a stick, a rod, a switch, an electrical cord, an extension cord, a belt, a broom, or a shoe . . . [or] brandishing a deadly weapon upon a child” can be used to determine “whether or not a defendant willfully caused any child to suffer, or inflicted unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering.”

ANSWER: California Bill AB 2943 (anti-corporal punishment bill). I think this statute is missing some “implements”, perhaps the following should be included: curettes (sharp, hoe-like instruments), medical suction devices, forceps used to dismember appendages, long-curved Mayo scissors for decapitation and dismemberment, scissor penetration in the back of the skull, and administration of Methotrexate-Misprostol and Mifepristone-Misoprostol. Each of those is already being administered on a daily basis to thousands of young, unborn Americans. Why not extend the reasoning of the corporal punishment bill to abortion?

Smoking Roe

It has happened. Iowa will likely pass a law prohibiting smoking in public places. I am not a cigarette smoker and this bill will not have much effect on my dining experience. However, this legislation reminds me of the illogical connection that liberal Democrats make between the “public good” and “choice.”

Under the sacred liberal cow of “choice”, smokers could clearly argue they have a choice to smoke and do to their bodies whatever they want. Democrats throw aside the liberty interest of “choice”, and employ the “public health” rationale. “We’re doing this to protect the workers of Iowa,” State Sen. Matt McCoy said. At least Mr. McCoy and I agree on that—we should protect vulnerable individuals, and that a nexus exists between second-hand smoke and cancer. Democrats, however, refuse to carry this “public health” rationale and logic to its rightful end.

Why isn’t this logic and desire to protect innocent lives carried through to the issue of pre-born humans? Almost 100% of abortions end in death. (Barack Obama would prefer to see those unsuccessful abortions still result in death, see prior note “Barack: Candidate of Change”). The nexus between a woman's “choice” and serious health effects for a third party is a much tighter connection than inhaling second-hand smoke as you pass someone on the street or in a bar.

“I think it’s a common sense issue.” said State Senator Roger Stewart, D-Preston. Unfortunately, he was not talking about the human rights of the unborn.