Posted
on April 19, 2012, 10:10 am,
by Richard Myers
and received Comments Off.
Here is a good article on the Public Discourse website by Teresa Collett (president of University Faculty for Life) defending Pain-Capable Child Protection Acts. http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/04/5176 Teresa explains: “These laws are premised on the idea that an unborn child’s capacity to feel pain, independent of fetal viability, is sufficient to establish the humanity of the child and to sustain a limited prohibition on abortion. Like partial-birth abortion bans, these laws advance public recognition of the unborn child’s humanity and should be supported.” The article discusses the evidence supporting the view that unborn children can feel pain at about 20 weeks post-fertilization. It also discusses the constitutionality of these bans. On the constitutional issue, Teresa concludes:”
Recognition of a compelling state interest in the protection of pain-capable unborn children does not require the Court to reject a woman’s liberty interest in obtaining an abortion or the balancing framework of Casey. It only asks the Court to recognize the legislature’s ability to use new scientific evidence that supports a strong state interest in regulating abortions at twenty weeks after fertilization. Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Acts modestly expand upon the states’ interests in the protection of fetal life and affirm the value of unborn life as recognized in the latest Supreme Court cases addressing abortion.”
Richard M.
Posted
on April 18, 2012, 3:49 pm,
by Richard Myers
and received Comments Off.
Here is a link to a recent post on Wesley Smith’s blog. Smith links to an article he recently published in the Human Life Review on “the unrepentant bigotry” against people with profound disabilities. http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2012/04/18/that-unrepentant-bigotry/ Here are the closing paragraphs of the article:
“Activists and their supporters who struggle against racism and other forms of discriminatory thinking have long understood that the words we use express how we think, which in turn, leads to action being taken–both private and public. By working to make racist and similar epithets beyond the pale, activists like Martin Luther King understood that better behavior would follow—and so it has.
Yet, there remains in society one group of people who are still mocked, dehumanized, marginalized, castigated, blamed for woes, and subjected to threatened actions that present a clear danger to their lives and futures. If we are to have a truly equal and moral society, if our health care system is to have any chance of caring properly for the least of those among us, to use a Biblical turn of phrase, we need to watch our mouths and cleanse our hearts.”
Richard M.
Posted
on April 10, 2012, 10:46 am,
by Richard Myers
and received Comments Off.
That’s the title of a new article (link to an abstract below) by Mark Rienzi (Catholic U). Rienzi argues that there is a federal due process right not to be forced to kill. The right arises in a variety of contexts–military operations, capital punishment, assisted suicide, abortion, and self-defense or defense of others. Rienzi doesn’t enter into the debate about the propriety of substantive due process (which brought us Roe v. Wade); he accepts the current law and argues that it supports a constitutional right not to kill.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2025281
Richard M.
Posted
on April 4, 2012, 3:21 pm,
by Richard Myers
and received Comments Off.
That’s the title of a recent post by Wesley Smith.http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2012/04/04/murder-not-the-answer-to-alzheimers/
Smith was commenting on a good article by David Brooks who discussed a recent murder-suicide. Charles Snelling, who in December had published a moving article about caring for his wife who had Alzheimer’s, murdered his wife and then committed suicide. It is difficult to comment on such a tragedy. By all accounts, Mr. Snelling was devoted to his wife of 61 years and we don’t know all the circumstances that led to these acts.
It is still necessary though to make the basic moral point that murder is not the solution to a serious illness or disability. As Brooks noted, “Our job is not to determine who is worthy of life, but how to make the most of the life we have been given.”
Richard M.
Posted
on March 30, 2012, 12:11 pm,
by Richard Myers
and received Comments Off.
Here is a link to a C-Fam story on a recent abortion decision from the Supreme Court of Argentine. The Court found that there was a constitutional right to abortion in the case of rape. This conclusion was based on international law, although not the type of international law actually embodied in a treaty. Rather, the decision was based on the work of various UN agencies and international organizations that support “reproductive rights.” This decision illustrates the grave dangers of the efforts of various UN entities that seek to promote abortion. http://www.c-fam.org/fridayfax/volume-15/argentine-supreme-court-falls-prey-to-un-treaty-monitoring-bodies.html
Richard M.
