Returning to a Ravaged Land.Many of you knew that I had been invited to some meetings in Rome and therefore was not in the United States until tonight. However, thanks to the biased and gloating reporters of CNN, I followed the pattern of destruction as Republicans and conservatives throughout the nation suffered one defeat after an other all across America.
I have not done any analysis or examined the exit polling. I have not had much sleep in the last 24 hours as I sit here pondering the effect of this election and what it all means.
I havenÂt looked at much on the web, though I saw that I was quoted in a Fox News analysis of the oral arguments of the partial abortion case held November 8, 2006.
And then I read that Jeff Groscost suddenly passed away and the funeral was held Wednesday. My condolences to the family and those close to him.
First - at the local level - Len Munsil and Bill Montgomery did something most of us would never do. They entered into the political arena and challenged the status quo. We all knew it would be a tough race because the incumbents have both the power of the office and the desires of those who curry favor with those in power. Add to the mix the dominant news media and the relative unknocandidaciesies of both candidates and there become major hurdles. They are to commended for their courage. Both of them have outstanding futures in both politics and public policy.
What was not fully realized by this author was the extent of the disconnect with the president and his party regarding the effort in Iraq. Add to that the spending by the Congress, the lack of a clearly articulated plan for the next few years and the results are staring you in the face. But the failure of the folks in Missouri and South Dakota to see through the millions of dollars spent by special interest groups and the failure of California to pass a simple parental notice initiative is another story. I will discuss those in a later blog.
I was very surprised by J. D. HayworthÂs loss. It is very clear that he was a victim of this voter attitude that in the long run may be something the voters will regret.
But then elections are funny things and voters sometimes make poor decisions. In fact some voters make poor decisions on a regular basis Â reference the northeast part of the country. I also recall that after saving England, the voters promptly kicked out Winston Churchill.
After spending time in Europe and especially in Poland, I can only resolve to work more diligently to achieve our goal of protecting all human life and having the law reflect that reality. However due to the lateness of the hour, I will reserve those thoughts to a later report.
I did send the author who quoted me an email raising some rather important points. I will advise you if she responds. My message is below.
Dear Ms. Wiehl,
I had the opportunity to review your article in which you quoted me from a 1996 interview with Steve Wilson of the Arizona republic on the subject of the partial birth abortion ban.
Those of us who oppose the killing of innocent children in the womb as well as outside the womb are concerned the difficult pregnancies of some women are not exploited by those who want wholesale abortion for the entire nine months of pregnancy. Wholesale abortion for the entire nine months of pregnancy is what the twin decisions of Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton imposed upon the country. But then you are a law professor and you know that.
As a law professor, how do you reconcile the inherent right to life that every innocent human being has with legal abortion?
(and please do not tell me you do not acknowledge the humanity of the child).
How is a nation suppose to respect the dignity of every human person when it will not guarantee the right to life of all its people?
How can we condemn in law someone who willfully takes the life of another, when the society allows the taking of the life of the unborn child?
It should not matter that the child's life will be short or long or even that there be suffering involved. One is not ordained with the "divine right of kings" to kill an innocent human being. To claim such would be to slide down the slippery slope that puts every innocent life at risk.
In reality because the unborn child , who as a recognized person in law prior to Roe, is at risk, we are all at risk. Our right to life can be stripped away by a court that could contend we are a burden, an inconvenience, a drain upon resources, a pain in the side of government.
As for the court, it never should have entered the abortion controversy in the 1970s. But between Brennan and Douglas, they had an agenda and wanted to socially engineer society. So they did. 47 million dead children later, our society is at odds over the nature of the person, the sexes, the family, and the role and purpose of law.
As a law professor, you know that the integrity of the law is what gives it credence. Otherwise it is just an exercise of power by those in control. The basis of law must be an acknowledgement of the nature of the human person and his/her ability to claim certain rights as preceding government and being superior to government restriction unless they harm or interfere with another's basic human rights. This concept was recognized in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 ( noting that such basic human rights are not limited to the States). The unborn child was also recognized as entitled to such recognition. Thus we find both in our own Declaration of Independence and in the UN Declaration an acknowledgement of the inherent right to life of the human person both prior to and after birth.
Having just returned from Europe, these international reflections are particularly current.
How then can the law permit its demise by private action?
I am interested in your response to these thoughts and in further dialogue if you are interested.
Attorney at Law