Archive for the ‘Pro-Life’ Category

Judges — Not Tribunes of the People

Monday, February 6th, 2017

The President has nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the current vacancy on the Supreme Court. This has excited and inflamed many people, and the battle over his confirmation will be a wild one. Filibusters and nuclear options are all on the table, and it will be very interesting to see what happens.

One thing that has already become clear, though, is that a great many Americans have no idea what a judge is really supposed to do. It may sound too trite to even be mentioned, but the fundamental truth is that a judge’s job is to decide cases. Nothing more.

A great deal of the commentary that you will see from the opponents of Judge Gorsuch is startlingly uninformed. After the announcement, people were already labeling him as “dangerous” and “extreme”, even though they hadn’t heard of him five minutes before. They were portraying him as some kind of wild-eyed maniac who somehow had managed to get on the Circuit Court of Appeals. Never mind that he was confirmed unanimously by the Senate for that position and that he has served there for the last decade without the Republic collapsing or anyone moving to impeach him.

The reality is that these advocates couldn’t care less about who Judge Gorsuch is (a pillar of his church and community), what his background is (both Columbia College and Harvard Law School, a few years behind me), or his years of outstanding public service (clerking on the Supreme Court and in a high position in the Justice Department). The reality is that these advocates only care about having a Supreme Court Justice who will enact their favored policy positions from the bench. And based on their rhetoric, the only issue that really seems to matter to them is abortion — they desperately want to keep abortion on demand legal in this country, and they don’t care how many people they have to calumniate and destroy to do it.

This campaign against Judge Gorsuch also betrays a complete lack of understanding about what a judge is supposed to do, and it illustrates how important it is for a judge to have a coherent philosophy of the law and a firm grasp of the essential principles of the American constitutional order.

Judges are not supposed to be super-legislators who make sure that their favored policies are embodied in their interpretation of the Constitution and statutes. Policy-making is the province of Congress and the President — the political branches that are subject to oversight by the electorate. The only job of the Supreme Court, as anyone can see in Article III of the Constitution, is to decide cases and controversies that arise under the Constitution and laws as well as certain other specific cases (like disputes between states).

Our Supreme Court has been violating that limited role for a very long time now. At least since the Progressive Era and especially since the New Deal, the Court has seen itself almost as a body of Platonic Guardians who can discern new meanings in the Constitution that nobody saw before. This is the body of judges who had the gall to say in the case of Casey v. Planned Parenthood:

Where, in the performance of its judicial duties, the Court decides a case in such a way as to resolve the sort of intensely divisive controversy reflected in Roe and those rare, comparable cases, its decision has a dimension that the resolution of the normal case does not carry. It is the dimension present whenever the Court’s interpretation of the Constitution calls the contending sides of a national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution.

What gaseous nonsense. I defy anyone to find even a hint of such a role for the Court in the Constitution or in any of the writings of the Founders of our Republic. Madison, Hamilton and Washington would be appalled by such a pronouncement.

This highlights the importance of a sound judicial philosophy and a coherent understanding of the structure and principles of our Constitution. Too many Justices are on the bench already who lack this, and instead are ideologues (like Justices Ginsberg and Sotomayor), smart but lock-step liberals (Justice Kagan and Breyer) or vacuous pragmatists (Justice Kennedy). They appeal to a non-existent entity they call the “living constitution” and use that to make up new laws as they go along. If you want to see how it’s done, see Obergefell v. Hodges. And in doing so they hijack the proper roles that the Constitution gives to Congress and the President.

Judge Gorsuch, on the other hand, is an “originalist” and a “textualist”, which means that his philosophy is to discern the actual meaning that Constitutional provisions had when they were adopted and the actual meaning of the words that appear in laws enacted by Congress. Then, in the common law tradition, he would see his job as applying those principles to decide the actual case or controversy that is before him. No vaporous pronouncements about grand roles of the Court, and no discoveries of new rights and liberties hiding in invisible ink in the penubras, emanations and miasmas of the Constitution.

This restrained approach to the law is what actually scares the advocates who oppose the judge. They have become so used to judges enacting their favorite policies that they can’t imagine one who does otherwise. They are desperate to hold onto their policy gains, and they dread putting them before the elected branches for an open democratic debate.

In ancient Rome, there was an office called the “Tribune of the People”. He had the power to veto any law or government action, and he was absolutely unaccountable to anyone — nobody could overrule him or even lay hands on him. That is not what our Constitution envisions when it gives the Supreme Court its “judicial power”. Judges should decide cases and controversies, give effect to the laws that were actually enacted by “we the people”, and not set themselves up as unaccountable rulers.

There are Never Enough Abortions for our State Leaders

Monday, January 23rd, 2017

Does anyone seriously think we need more abortions in New York, or that abortions are hard to get in our state? Apparently, our Governor and some leading Democratic legislators do. What can they possibly be thinking?

According to the most recent state statistics from 2014, there were 93,300 abortions in New York State. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, a well-known pro-abortion research group, puts the number highter, at 119,400. Thanks be to God, these number have been coming down in recent years, but regardless, it’s a mind-boggling number — in less than two years, the equivalent of the population of my home town, Yonkers, is exterminated.

There are few, if any, limits on access to abortion in New York. Women of every single county have abortions, and there are over 200 facilities where they take place, mostly stand-alone clinics. 79% of New York’s abortions are currently paid for by health insurance, 47% by Medicaid. In 52% of the abortions, the mother had at least one prior; in 15%, the mother had 3 or more priors;  in 4.3%, the mother had 5 or more priors. Nobody is having a hard time getting an abortion.

There is no evidence that wider access to abortion is necessary to preserve the health of women. The vast majority of abortions have nothing to do with health concerns. According to Guttmacher, “The three most common reasons — each cited by three-fourths of patients — were concern for or responsibility to other individuals; the inability to afford raising a child; and the belief that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents. Half said they did not want to be a single parent or were having problems with their husband or partner.” In other words, most abortions are taking place as a method of back-up contraception, and have nothing to do with the health of mothers.

So why are the Governor and legislators pushing for more abortions?

The Governor just announced a new set of regulations that would require every health insurance plan to cover “medically necessary” abortions, with no co-pays or deductibles. The term “medically necessary” isn’t defined in his rules, but pro-abortion advocates have typically used it to mean basically any abortion that a doctor either recommends or agrees to. In short, the Governor thinks that every woman in New York should be able to have an abortion for any reason whatsoever at any stage of pregnancy — for free. I’m sure the Governor understands economics, so I’m sure he understands very well that if you reduce the cost of something to zero, more people will avail themselves of it.

And take a look at the new bill that’s been introduced by Democrats in the Legislature (and that I would expect the Governor to sign into law, if it ever passes). This bill is really wicked. It would:

  • Permit non-doctors to do surgical abortions.
  • Increase the number of late-term abortions.
  • Endanger the few health and safety regulations that we currently have.
  • Compel hospitals and doctors to participate in abortions.
  • Eliminate any criminal penalties for back-alley abortions.

The worst part of this bill is so extreme that it boggles the mind. It would repeal a section of our Public Health Law (Section 4164, the “Baby Doe Law”) that gives full civil rights protection to any child who might be born alive as the result of an abortion. This law also requires a second doctor to be available during a late-term abortion — when the baby is likely to be able to live outside of the womb with basic medical care.

This evil bill would eliminate that law and treat those babies as non-persons — essentially saying, to paraphrase the infamous Dred Scott decision, that “a baby born alive after an abortion has no rights that born people are bound to respect”. Yet our Politburo-like Assembly passed the bill by a wide margin, and the only thing standing between it and the Governor’s pen is the slim pro-life majority in the Senate.

It is hard to conceive a reason to repeal these humane protections of basic human rights — unless you understand that the true motivation of pro-abortion advocates is to ensure the death of more “unwanted” babies.

This is what our state has come to. All the hooplah over marches for women and full civil rights for weak and vulnerable people is just a charade. The tragic reality is that powerful people in New York — particularly our Governor and Democratic legislative leaders — want to change the law so that there are more dead children, more damaged mothers and fathers, and an increase in the malign effects of the Culture of Death.

When will enough be enough?

The Awful Truth of Assisted Suicide Advocacy

Wednesday, January 11th, 2017

When they speak to the general public or to legislators, advocates for assisted suicide routinely express concern about ensuring patient safety, and point to the allegedly rigorous safeguards that they have written into their proposed bills. We have long countered that these safeguards are mere shams, and provide no real protection for vulnerable patients.

Now, thanks to an article at an obscure legal blog, we know what the assisted suicide advocates really think. They want no safeguards at all. They believe that any patient protections written into law are harmful and unnecessary. They want assisted suicide to be a normal part of medical practice and for doctors alone to set the standards.

In other words, they’ve been deceiving us all along about what they really want.

The truth was revealed in a recent article by Kathryn Tucker, who is the Executive Director of the “End of Life Liberty Project”. She is a leading advocate for assisted suicide, and is one of the attorneys who is suing New York State to have assisted suicide legalized. She was commenting on the recent District of Columbia law that legalized assisted suicide — a bill that her fellow advocates drafted and which is similar to all the bills that have been introduced around the country, including the one her own organization has endorsed in New York.

But despite the lip service that they pay to patient protection, the reality is that she has no use for  safeguards that are designed to protect patients from abuse and manipulation. Instead she calls them “burdens and restrictions”, and adds:

While in some ways these enactments are a step toward expanding end of life liberty, they impose heavy governmental intrusion into the practice of medicine, which is concerning because it creates barriers to patient access and to physician participation.

“Barriers” to more death, in other words.

She then went on to object to such common-sense protections as:

  • Requiring the patient to make multiple requests, including at least one in writing, which is designed to ensure that the patient isn’t acting rashly.
  • Requiring that the request be witnessed, which would ensure that the request is being made by a competent person who is not under coercion.
  • Obtaining a second opinion, which is intended to protect the patient from a mis-diagnosis
  • Referring the patient to a mental health specialist to ensure that they are competent to make medical decisions.
  • Mandating a fifteen-day waiting period, again to ensure that the decision isn’t being made rashly.
  • Requiring that doctors collect and report data about the case, which would allow public health authorities and law enforcement to oversee what is happening and take action if there are abuses.

Now, to be clear, we consider all of these supposed safeguards to be inadequate to protect vulnerable patients. They leave too many loopholes, such as the failure to insist on a psychological screening for depression. And most alarming, they don’t provide any protection whatsoever after the medicine has been dispensed and the patient leaves the hospital. These problems can’t be fixed, and that alone is a reason to oppose legalization.

But now we know what assisted suicide activists are really after. They want more patients to have “access” to suicide, so that more people can kill themselves. And they want more doctors who are willing to participate in the killing. They don’t want to give patients even the minimal protections that go along with the execution of simple legal documents like wills, health care proxies or powers of attorney. They want doctors like Dr. Kevorkian to make up their own rules. And they don’t want anyone to be able to oversee what’s happening and hold people accountable.

The awful truth is that their agenda is death, and more of it. They want to push us down the slippery slope. They must be stopped.

Pro-Life Judges

Monday, January 2nd, 2017

I was recently asked my opinion of the list of the President-Elect’s potential Supreme Court nominees. I don’t have any personal knowledge of any of the people on the list, so I can’t really say anything useful about them. But I do have some observations about whether these people, or any judges, can be said to be “pro-life”.

In most cases, it is extraordinarily difficult to divine the personal views, and even at times the judicial philosophy, of lower-court judges based on isolated judicial opinions. Conscientious lower court judges are bound by precedent and are not free to overrule or widely diverge from it, even if they disagree with it. It is not good practice for lower court judges to openly criticize precedent. So even if a lower court judge rules against the “pro-life” side in a case, it doesn’t necessarily mean anything about their personal views or their judicial philosophy. It could just mean that the judge is doing his job.

Plus, sitting judges generally avoid writing law review articles or giving substantive talks on issues, since that might be considered pre-judging cases. There is also a phenomenon in the legal world where a person who hopes to be appointed to the bench deliberately declines to speak openly about controversial topics, to preserve their confirmability. So most sitting judges are a bit Sphinx-like when it comes to their actual views.

It is also a fact that there is probably not more than a handful of sitting federal or state high court judges who are “pro-life” in the sense that I would use the term — namely, they believe that unborn human beings are “persons” within the meaning of the 14th Amendment and are entitled to full legal protection. No Justice of the Supreme Court has ever taken that position — not even Justices Scalia or Thomas — and I would doubt that any sitting state judge has done so either.

So I would be very reluctant to call any judge “pro-life”, lest the word lose its real meaning.

In the absence of such persons, our best bet at this point is a “constitutionalist” or “originalist”, who would hold with Justice Thomas (and the late Justice Scalia) that there is no right to abortion guaranteed in the Constitution, and that the issue is therefore reserved to the states to permit and regulate or prohibit. I am not satisfied with that view, but I think it is just about as good as we can get in the current legal climate.

My general impression, from what I have read, is that the people on the President-Elect’s list would likely fit that description. Since I have no confidence whatsoever that the President-elect would recognize constitutionalism if it hit him over the head, I take some comfort in the probability that he is getting advice from the Federalist Society, which is committed to that view of the law.

Of course, one never knows what a person will do once they’re on the Court (as we have seen from Warren, Brennan, Souter, Kennedy, O’Connor, Roberts and many, many more examples). The Court is generally reluctant to overturn major precedents, and instead prefers to adjust or adapt them (see Casey). So I am not particularly sanguine about any reversal of Roe/Casey in the near term. I think that if a couple of constitutionalist Justices are appointed, we might get a ruling that backs away from the expansive application of Casey’s “undue burden” standard that we saw used to devastating effect in Whole Women’s Health to strike down Texas’ health and safety regulations for abortion clinics. That would be a tremendous accomplishment in itself because it would open up the field for further state restrictions, and it could lay the groundwork for an eventual direct attack on Roe/Casey.

One thing that I particularly fear is a sense of pro-life over-confidence that might lead to a premature assault on Roe/Casey. Pushing flawed and risky cases too fast (e.g., heartbeat bills) could produce a disastrous reaffirmation of Roe/Casey, perhaps with an even stronger constitutional justification based on the (spurious) idea that the Equal Protection Clause requires abortion rights to ensure the ability of women to fully participate in society. That is a position long proposed by Justice Ginsberg, and given the tenor of recent Court decisions like Obergefell, it may appeal to a majority of other justices as well.

At this point, I’m more concerned with the Executive Branch appointments, since that’s where most of the action is right now — regulations, enforcement actions, etc. I also fear that too much attention will be paid to DC, and not enough to the states where the pro-death movement will be very active in expanding abortion rights and promoting assisted suicide. State legislatures and courthouses are the battlefront right now, and our movement needs to focus on them, and less on crystal-ball gazing about potential judicial appointments.

A Political Desecration

Monday, November 7th, 2016

Yesterday, Fr. Frank Pavone, the leader of Priests for Life, went live on Facebook to endorse Donald Trump for President. That’s his right as a U.S. citizen, and one can agree or disagree with that as a matter of course. But the way he did it was absolutely appalling, and deserves to be repudiated by all of us who consider ourselves to be pro-life in the fullest meaning of that word.

What did he do? He used a dead aborted baby, laying naked and bloody on an altar, as a prop for his video.

Yes, you read that correctly.

A priest of the Catholic Church publicly displayed on a sacred altar a dead baby who was the victim of a terrible crime as part of a propaganda video in favor of a political candidate.

It is hard for me to express in calm, measured terms, the revulsion I feel about this. I know that the pro-life movement has long had a debate about the use of graphic images to reveal the reality of abortion. The discussion has always focused on a cost/benefit analysis of their effect of the viewer versus the risk of alienating those who don’t want to see such things, especially on women who are post-abortive and have not yet healed.

But that’s all beside the point. The real question is, what about that baby as a human being? That baby is an individual human person, someone’s son or daughter, made in the image and likeness of God, unique and unrepeatable, and deserving of our love and mercy. To use her body in this way is to treat that poor lost girl or boy as an object to be used — which is the antithesis of love  — and not as a brother or sister to be mourned.

Who would ever wish that their body be used in such a way?  Who would ever want that for a loved one?  Can any of us imagine that being the right way to treat the remains of our dead son or daughter?

And to place that baby’s body on an altar, which has been sanctified for the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? To treat the altar of God as if it’s a mere podium for a political speech?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches us that “The bodies of the dead must be treated with respect and charity, in faith and hope of the Resurrection.” There is no ambiguity there.

A human being has been sacrificed and the altar of God has been desecrated, all for politics. Everyone who respects the dignity of every human person should reject and disavow this atrocity.

The Danger Signs on Suicide are Clear

Saturday, April 23rd, 2016

It is hard not to have sympathy for those who are advocating for the legalization of assisted suicide as a way of alleviating suffering. Suffering is a terrible reality of human life, an experience of evil that cannot be avoided. Without a Christian understanding of the meaning of suffering (see St. John Paul’s magnificent letter Salvifici Doloris), it is a fearsome thing to face.

But even a non-believer should be able to discern the clear danger signs about the inevitable effects of legalizing any form of suicide, and step away from that precipice.

The experience of European countries that have legalized assisted suicide are test cases. We can see the way that the practice spread from the terminally ill, to those with chronic illnesses, to those with psychiatric or developmental problems, to minors, and utimately to people who were put to death even though they never requested it. It is abundantly clear that there are no limiting principles that can stop the spread of assisted suicide, and its progress to outright euthanasia.

The danger signs can also be seen in the most recent statistics released by the Centers for Disease Control on the incidence of suicide in the United States.

The situation is truly alarming — suicide has increased dramatically over the last two decades. Here are some of the lowlights of the report:

  • From 1999 through 2014, the suicide rate increased 24%, with the pace of increase accellerating after 2006.
  • Suicide rates increased from 1999 through 2014 for both males and females and for all ages 10–74.
  • In 2014, the rate for males was more than three times that for females, but the percent increase was greater for females (45% increase) than males (16% increase).
  • Although there were few suicides compared with other age groups, the suicide rate for females aged 10–14 tripled.
  • In both 1999 and 2014, suicide rates were highest among men aged 75 and over. Men aged 45–64 had the second-highest suicide rate for males in 2014 and the largest percent increase (43%) in rates.
  • Suicide is increasing against the backdrop of generally declining mortality, and is currently one of the 10 leading causes of death overall and within each age group 10–64.

With this information, how can it possibly make sense to legalize assisted suicide, which sends a clear, strong message that some lives are not worth living, and that death is the solution? Shouldn’t we instead redouble our efforts to convince people to reject suicide?

Advocates for assisted suicide insist that society defer absolutely to their autonomy, based on a notion that people have absolute liberty to do whatever they like. Yet our society has never done so. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said in his famous dissent in the Lochner case, “The liberty of the citizen to do as he likes so long as he does not interfere with the liberty of others to do the same, which has been a shibboleth for some well known writers, is interfered with by school laws, by the Post Office, by every state or municipal institution which takes his money for purposes thought desirable, whether he likes it or not.” The idea that people have complete autonomy is both incoherent and an invitation to anarchy.

Again, the suffering of individuals is compelling and naturally rouses sympathy. We must do everything we can to alleviate the physical, psychological, social, emotional and spiritual suffering of all our brethren.

But the particular desires of individuals cannot be the basis of making law for our entire society. St. Thomas Aquinas defined law as “an ordinance of reason for the common good”. The good of all of society must be the controlling concern when we make law, not the idiosyncratic interests of some people or groups.

The danger signs of relaxing our immemorial ban on suicide are very, very clear that it would lead to many more unnecessary and tragic deaths. We must continue to resist any effort to legalize any form of suicide, for the good of all of society.

A Light at the End of the Tunnel?

Wednesday, April 13th, 2016

There is growing reason to hope that the long battle to defend religious freedom against the HHS Mandate may soon be favorably resolved.

You will recall that the “HHS mandate” comes from a provision in the “Affordable Care Act” (the “ACA”, which is typically being called “Obamacare”) that requires all employers who offer health insurance to include coverage for “preventive services”. The term “preventive services” has been defined by the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) to include contraceptive drugs and devices (including “emergency contraception”, which causes early abortions) and sterilization operations. Churches and other purely religious organizations are exempted from this mandate, but many religious and other organizations are not. As a result, they have been in court trying to vindicate their right to conscientious objection — they don’t want to cooperate in the provision of services or products that are against their religious beliefs.

There was a significant victory in 2014 when the right of two family-owned corporations won their case before the U.S. Supreme Court (the  Hobby Lobby case). But now the Court is considering a major case involving numerous religious organizations who are not exempt, and who are facing massive fines if they don’t knuckle under. The most prominent of these organizations is the Little Sisters of the Poor, but there are other Catholic and Protestant organizations as well. The principal argument of these organizations is that the government is requiring them to file forms that essentially allows the government to “hijack” their health plan to provide services that they consider morally evil.

The case was argued before the Supreme Court in March. Usually, we would expect a decision in late June, but things in the Court have become complicated by the death of Justice Scalia — cases that might otherwise have been decided by a 5 to 4 vote would likely now result in a 4 to 4 split Court.  Perhaps becuase of this dilemma, the Court did something very unusual.  They asked the parties to submit additional briefs, in response to a suggestion from the Court that there may be a way to resolve the case, by permitting employees to receive the offensive services without any action by the religious groups. This was encouraging — it suggested that the Court was sympathetic to the religious liberty arguments, and was seeking a way to protect them.

Now the religious organizations and the government have filed their briefs. The Little Sisters et al. readily agreed to the Court’s suggestion, saying that they could comply with an arrangement where they are not required to take any action that would trigger the provision of the services, and if the services are actually provided by a separate insurance plan (even if it is run by their regular insurance carrier). This is all that the religious organizations have ever wanted — to be left alone to do their work, without getting dragged into anyone’s sex lives. In effect, they were saying to the Court, “This is the solution that we would have suggested to the government years ago, if they had only asked”.

The government, for its part, reacted by quibbling, complaining, and digging their heels in. They complained about having to file a new brief. They insisted that no further concessions were necessary to protect the religious groups’ consciences — as if they knew better what is in violation of Catholic or Protestant moral teachings. They groused that the Court’s suggestion would require changes to other sections of the law and regulations, as if that were something unheard-of, rather than the commonplace result of any litigation of this type. They continued to fantasize that any further accommodation would lead to a parade of horribles — endless further litigation, thousands of women without health care, etc. And in the end, as if they were swallowing nasty-tasting medicine, they kind-of, sort-of, very reluctantly maybe agreed that the Court’s suggestion would be barely acceptable.

This ungracious reply hurts the government’s credibility, and is cause to be hopeful for a positive result. The Court now has reason to wonder why the case is even before them, and has a clear way to resolve it.  All they need do is issue a simple opinion, stating that the government has failed to establish a compelling reason to force the Little Sisters et al. to cooperate with the HHS Mandate, and ordering the settlement that the Court suggested, to which both the government (however grudgingly) and the Sisters have now agreed.

That would end this long nightmare, and vindicate the right to conscience of religious organizations. But it also raises a troubling question — if such a common-sense solution was available all this time, why did the government insist on forcing the cooperation of the religious groups? I know of no other answer, other than the Administration’s well-established hostility to traditional religious values, and their complete dedication to the spread of the ideology of sexual liberation, against any opposition.

The Danger is Real

Thursday, February 11th, 2016

One of the common arguments offered by assisted suicide advocates is that the track record of the practice in Oregon shows that there have been no problems.  Just last week, I sat in the courtroom of the Appellate Division and heard the suicide group’s lawyer say that repeatedly and with passion.

The problem for them is, it just isn’t true.  In fact, the most recent report from Oregon bears out all the warnings we’ve been offering about what would happen if it were legalized here in New York:

  • It threatens disabled people — the three most frequently mentioned end-of-life concerns are not unbearable pain, but instead were decreasing ability to participate in activities that made life enjoyable (96.2%), loss of autonomy (92.4%), and loss of dignity (75.4%).  Legalization of assisted suicide amounts to saying that a life with a disability is not worth living.
  • It ignores mental health problems — Only 3.8% of those who ask for suicide are referred for psychiatric evaluation, even though it’s well-established that those who ask for suicide are frequently suffering from treatable depression.  A recent study of euthanasia in Holland underscores this problem — people with mental illness are not getting psychiatric treatment for their problems and are choosing to kill themselves instead.
  • It harms the elderly — Virtually all those who committed suicide were over 55, and the great majority over 65.  Are we really willing to send the message that suicide is a good thing for elderly people?
  • It threatens vulnerable and isolated people — 62.5% were insured by some kind of government insurance (e.g. Medicaid or Medicare), 26% were widowed, and 27.5% divorced; the median length of their relationship with the doctor who gave them the deadly drugs was only 9 weeks — and at least one person had only known their doctor for one week.
  • There is no supervision to prevent abuse — 79.2% died with no health provider present, and in more than 89% of the cases the prescribing doctor was not present (although he makes the report and signs the death certificate).  So how can we tell if the person was mentally competent, and free of coercion?
  • It’s a danger to others — 86 people got the deadly drugs but didn’t take them, raising the question — what happened to the other drugs?
  • The numbers continue to rise — Every year there’s an increase in people receiving deadly drugs and in those taking them.  It should also be noted that other studies have shown that the overall suicide rate increases in states where assisted suicide is legal.

No matter how the advocates try to twist the language (using the Orwellian term “aid in dying”, as opposed to “assisted suicide”) or spin the numbers, we all know where this is going.  In the European countries that have legalized suicide, it has led to widespread euthanasia, including involuntary killing of patients who never asked for suicide, the killing of children, and the establishment of stand-alone suicide clinics.  Advocates here have already said that they intend to extend the reach of assisted suicide beyond the terminally ill.

The facts are clear — the danger is real.

The Politics of Principle

Tuesday, February 2nd, 2016

(This is a repeat of a post from this same day the last seven years.  This post was written in memory of Jack Swan, a great warrior of faith and politics, who entered eternal life on February 2, 1998.  God sent Jack into my life to teach me these lessons about politics, and I’m just a pygmy standing on the shoulders of a giant.  As time goes by, I see more and more a need for us to recapture the politics of principle — this year, perhaps more than ever, as we see a man running for President who is the most unprincipled candidate since Aaron Burr.  Jack, please pray for me, that I get the lessons right.)

In the mind of most people, “politics” is the struggle of candidates, political parties, and their supporters to gain power and influence in the government. That is certainly true up to a point, and it makes for interesting entertainment.

I write a good deal about politics on this blog and elsewhere, and I’m frequently perceived as being “political” in that sense — of being “partisan”. That completely misses the point.

There is a deeper, more significant nature of politics. It is the way we order our society together, so that we can live according to our vocations and be happy, and ultimately attain eternal life. In this understanding of politics, the partisan theater is an important reality, but it is not the main focus. What really matters is principle.

Without principles, politics becomes mere pragmatism, where the question is whether something “works”, or, in the less elevated version of the game, what’s in it for me. Now, don’t get me wrong. Pragmatism is important — we want our government to be effective. But again, principle is more important.

I received much of my tutelage in the real world of politics from a man who devoted his life to being a practitioner of the politics of principle. I learned that it was fine to be keenly interested in the partisan scrum, but only to the extent that it advanced the principles we hold dear — defense of human life, protection of marriage, family and children, and religious liberty. The promotion of those principles is more important than party label, and the idea is to support — or oppose — politicians based on their fidelity to those principles, not based on what party label they happened to be wearing this week.

That’s how I try to practice politics, in my small and limited way. I have opinions and judgments about many pragmatic issues, and what kinds of national security, economic and other policies would “work” better than others. But none of those pragmatic issues matter at all, compared to the core principles.

Here’s how it works for me. If a politician doesn’t protect human life, I don’t care what his position is on other issues. If he can’t understand that human life is sacred and must be protected at all stages, I have no reason to trust his judgment about any other issue. And, very frankly, anyone who does not understand that basic principle is not, in my opinion, fit to hold public office.

The same holds for the other core issues. I don’t care if you’re a Republican or a Democrat. If you don’t respect human life, don’t see the need to preserve marriage as one man and one woman, and won’t defend religious liberty, then you just have to look elsewhere to get your fifty percent plus one.

This means that I am perpetually dissatisfied with our political process and our politicians. But that’s fine with me. They are all temporary office holders anyway, here today and gone tomorrow, and their platforms are passing fancies that nobody will remember in a short time. The principles, however, remain perpetually valid.

Listen, Our Lord made a very simple request of us. He said, “Follow me”. He didn’t say, be a Republican or a Democrat, a Socialist or a Whig. He demands that I be his follower. So I need to look to the Lord for my principles, and in this age that means I have to listen to the Church. That’s what Our Lord wants me to do — after all, he said to his apostles “he who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Lk 10:16). We happen to have in our midst the successors of those apostles — the Holy Father, our bishops, and my bishop in particular. As a Catholic I must listen to them, and get my political principles from them, not from Fox News, CNN, talking heads of the left or the right, the editorial page of the Times, or either the Democratic or Republican Parties.

This, to me, is the way to live as a disciple of Christ in this crazy political process. I realize that this will be considered odd by many, and even dangerous by some.

But we hardly need more party loyalists at this, or any other, time. And we certainly need more practitioners of the politics of principle.

Love for Animals, Danger for Humans

Friday, October 9th, 2015

I had the pleasure of attending a very interesting lecture at Fordham Law School, entitled “The Law, Science, and Ethics Behind the Nonhuman Rights Project and Its Struggle to Achieve Fundamental Legal Rights for Nonhuman Animals”. The principal presenter was an attorney, the leader of that project, who deeply loves animals.  He has brought numerous lawsuits attempting to persuade courts to declare chimpanzees to be legal persons, and thus entitled to rights and protection under the law.

This subject is particularly interesting to me, and I am completely in support of the argument that we have a moral obligation to love and treat animals humanely.  I am a vegetarian, and I have very serious moral objections to the way that industrial farming treats animals.  Pope Francis, in Laudato Si’, was very firm in insisting on the immorality of animal cruelty and the duty to treat animals humanely.

But even more important to me is the issue of legal personhood.  In the law, only those entities that are deemed “persons” possess the ability to assert rights, duties, freedoms and immunities that are legally enforceable.  In essence, the law will only recognize you and defend your rights if it considers you to be a “person”.

Under current American law, legal personhood is recognized for human beings (with an important exception I’ll discuss in a second) and entities that are created under the law and called “juridical persons” (e.g., governments, corporations, partnerships, and other associations).  No American law has ever recognized legal personhood in non-human animals.

Unfortunately, the two most notorious Supreme Court decisions in history both specifically denied personhood to a class of human beings.  The Dred Scott decision held that blacks were not persons under the law and thus “they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect” — so they could be held as chattel slaves.  The Roe v. Wade decision similarly held that “the word ‘person,’ as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn” — and thus they could be killed with impunity.  An equally appalling New York State Court of Appeals decision, Byrn v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, also specifically denied that unborn human beings are legal persons and thus have no rights that are bound to be respected by those lucky enough to be already born.   

That brings us to the lawsuits that seek to have chimps defined as legal “persons”.  It would be easy to view these actions as ludicrous, and I imagine that most people would dismiss them as such.  As a legal matter, I believe that the cases are meritless.  Their theory rests on the inconsistency of the law recognizing some humans as persons, while denying that status to others — which is true, but irrelevant when it comes to animals, which are, by definition, non-human.  And it relies heavily on an eighteenth-century English case that decided that slavery was not recognized under English common law.  But if you cite the common law as authority, you have to accept it whenever it’s contrary to your position too.  And English and American common law — as well as statutory and constitutional law — have never treated animals as persons, and always considered them to be property.  Wishful thinking and good intentions can’t make the law into something that it has never been.

But an unconvincing legal theory is not the most dangerous thing about these lawsuits, and the entire effort to have animals recognized as legal persons.  The animal personhood effort is premised on the fundamentally flawed idea that there is no relevant moral difference between humans and other animals — a rejection of “human exceptionalism”, which has been an axiom of law and society throughout history.  Instead, they seek to define personhood by reference to characteristics such as whether the animal is “autonomous and self-determining”, or whether they “possess the complex cognitive abilities sufficient for personhood” (to quote from the chimp’s court filings).

But these are inherently arbitrary.  Who decides what is sufficient, and what is not, and by what standard?  Do we draw the line at the “complex cognitive abilities” of chimps, or at dolphins, cats, dogs, chickens, insects, etc.?  Who is to say what degree of  “autonomous and self-determining” is enough to grant rights, and when it is not?  How an anyone tell, without any bright line standard — such as the obvious difference between the human species and an animal species?

Even aside from the legal chaos and arbitrariness that would result, there’s an even greater danger — if that’s the standard for determining personhood for animals, what if the same standard is applied to humans?

We know that the courts have no problem deciding that unborn children aren’t persons.  But what about newborn babies, who clearly are not “autonomous and self-determining” yet, and haven’t developed to the point where they “possess complex cognitive abilities”?  How about those who are in a permanent vegetative state?  Or advanced Alzheimers patients?  Will they be defined as non-persons, so that they have no protection under the law — and they can be treated as property to be mined for their organs,  or killed if they become too expensive to maintain?

This is not an idle set of questions, or a speculative “slippery slope”.  There are people, like the Princeton philosopher Peter Singer, who would gladly exclude from legal personhood those humans who lack sufficient “complex cognitive abilities” to satisfy his personal standards.

When law is made, laudable motives are not sufficient.  It’s wonderful that the Nonhuman Rights Project loves animals, and we absolutely need to grant greater legal protection to our fellow creatures. But the unintended consequences of legal changes must also be considered.  And the inevitable result of the animal personhood legal theories would be dangerous — and deadly — to humans.