Call For Sanity

  As I prepared to watch the president's annual State of the Union speech and the opposition party's rebuttal on Tuesday, I couldn't help but think about what it would be like if we didn't have such division in our country.  The ongoing impasse over the border wall is evidence of the degree of separation between leadership in the two major parties, which is symptomatic of the public mood when it comes to hot button issues.  I was pleasantly surprised that his speech and the response to the speech did not reflect the childish bickering we have seen in recent years.  The most noticeable contrast in response to the speech was the president's reference to late term abortion, where the Republicans stood and applauded, while the Democrats sat with scowls on their faces. By coincidence (or perhaps divine prompting), I had a discussion about the divisiveness of American politics on Monday over lunch with a friend originally from Russia.  At first we were talking about...

The recent law in New York state expanding abortion rights in the Empire State has stoked the flames on an already heated issue.   The law was greeted with cheers from supporters, while it contains several provisions that are alarming to opponents. Regardless of where you stand in general on abortion rights, there are a few provisions that are noteworthy in terms of the strategic value in establishing precedent to counter the shifting tides in the battle over abortion. With the recent appointment of Justice Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, the court has a conservative majority for the first time in generations.   In fact, the appointment of justices to all levels of the federal courts has been a major factor in presidential elections going back to the 1980s. In the years since the Roe v Wade decision made access to abortion a “right” across the country, conservatives have managed to slowly implement restrictions on access to abortion services, and advances in scien...

[On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States officially overturned the January 22, 1973, decision by the same body. This opinion, which I authored in 2009,  explains my reasons for believing that this was an appropriate decision.] Whether you are for or against abortion rights, you should be against Roe v. Wade. Why? Because Roe v. Wade is a perfect example of the danger that judicial activism poses to the integrity of the U.S. Constitution. It is claiming to find something in the Constitution that just isn't there. Where in the Constitution is there a protection of personal individual freedom with regards to medical decisions, parental decisions, or even prohibition against murder? Nowhere. These matters are to be decided by elected legislatures, not appointed judges. If a legislature wants to make it legal for a woman to kill her child during pregnancy because the pregnancy has medical implications for the woman, that is within the powers granted by the Constituti...