Message #162110

[Harconen]

            The Obama administration files a brief relating to the court case Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation et al. v. Obama, et al. The plaintiffs charged that their conversations were illegally intercepted by the National Security Agency, and asked for a review of a classified document that allegedly would prove illegal eavesdropping. Obama’s brief argues that the court has no right to request the document, and a refusal to release it is at “…the discretion of the Executive Branch, and is not subject to judicial review” and “the Court does not have independent power… to order the Government to grant counsel access to classified information when the Executive Branch denied them such access.” The brief essentially argues that anything Obama wants to keep secret can be kept secret, no court can order its release, and his decision is final. (As a Senator and candidate, Obama criticized President Bush for similar claims of executive privilege.) [1490, 1491]

            Word spreads that Obama will pick Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius to be his Secretary of Health and Human Services (in place of Tom Daschle, who withdrew because of controversy over his failure to pay income taxes). Because of Sebelius’ pro-abortion stance (Kansas has been “the place to go” for late-term abortions because of her efforts to prevent enforcement of abortion restrictions), her nomination will result in immediate criticism and opposition. Critics point to a 2007 event at the governor’s residence attended by abortionist George Tiller, who was then under investigation by the Attorney General, and who had donated to Sebelius’ campaigns. (Tiller, who donated $35,450 to Sebelius campaigns between 1994 and 2002, went on trial in March 2009 on 19 charges of violating Kansas’ restrictions on late-term abortions; he was acquitted of all charges. Tiller still risks the loss of his medical license for violations of the Healing Arts Act, for “performing an abortion on a fetus that was viable without having a documented referral from another physician not legally or financially affiliated with him.”) Many argue that the position of Secretary of Health and Human Services should be filled by a person with executive experience from the private sector, not a career politician with none of the skills required to run an enormous bureaucracy. [1437, 1746, 2020, 2083, 2319, 2508]

            Obama moves to rescind a Bush administration rule that helps protect the jobs of doctors and nurses who, on moral grounds, refuse to perform or participate in abortions. The Bush guidelines require that institutions receiving federal funds certify that they are complying with anti-discrimination rules. Obama’s action prompts the Christian Medical Association’s (CMA) CEO, David Stevens, to warn that infringing on the right to practice medicine according to life-affirming ethical standards will force physicians and nurses to leave the profession and lead to the shutting down of hospitals and clinics. Stevens states that four out of ten of the CMA’s members have reported “being pressured to violate ethical standards,” and states that physicians lose positions and promotions and residents lose training privileges because they refuse to perform abortions, and some students decide against a career in obstetrics because they do not want to be forced to perform abortions. The president of the Catholic Health Association, Sister Carol Keehan, charges, “We have seen a variety of efforts to force Catholic and other health care providers to perform or refer for abortions and sterilizations.” Stevens adds, “The move to rescind the health care provider conscience regulation imperils women’s health care access, threatens health care professionals’ freedom to practice medicine according to ethical standards, and exposes the myth of moderation in Obama’s abortion policy.” [1438, 1444, 1759, 1935]

            Obama’s pro-abortion stance is typically justified with the standard but illogical Democrat line that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.” That statement prompts the questions, “If there is nothing inherently wrong or immoral with the procedure, why does it need to be rare?” and “If abortion is inherently wrong or immoral, then why must it always be legal and unrestricted?” Obama tries to sound sympathetic and understanding by saying that choosing abortion is a “difficult decision,” but if the procedure is merely to remove and discard unwanted “tissue” that is not yet a human being, nothing about the decision should be agonizing. Abortion advocates like Obama never say they are “pro-abortion,” of course, they say they are “pro-choice” and support “reproductive freedom.” But while Obama talks about making the practice rare, his legislative record has been one of removing every obstacle standing in the way of abortions—even partial birth abortions. He can hardly lecture anyone on the need to make abortions “rare” when he is eagerly promoting the practice. (The lunacy of the leftist language is obvious when transferred to something other than abortion. Author and columnist Ann Coulter writes, “It would be as if gun owners refused to use the word ‘gun’ and the NRA’s motto were, ‘Let’s all work together to keep hunting safe, legal and rare.’”) [2678]

            On February 28, a Rasmussen poll places Obama’s approval index at +10, with 39 per cent strongly approving his job performance and 29 per cent strongly disapproving (a new high for disapprovals). Americans sees deficit reduction as the most important issue outlined in Obama’s speech to Congress on the 24th, but also view it as the least likely to be achieved. [1441, 1442]

            Despite cold, windy weather, over one thousand people gather at the Gateway Arch in St. Louis to protest Obama’s tax-and-spend policies. Radio host Dana Loesch rallies the crowd and emcees the event. “We are mad as Hell and we need to stay mad as Hell. Don’t let up,” says Jackie Smith (former tight end for the St. Louis Cardinals football team). [1462]

            It is reported that Obama’s Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, endorses the concept of embedding radio chips (radio frequency ID, or RFID) in driver’s licenses. The “enhanced driver’s license” could be read by a remote reading unit even if the license remains in the individual’s wallet or purse. The potential for abuse is enormous. For example, the government could know the identity of every individual present at an event (such as an abortion protest, anti-government rally, gun show, etc.) simply by having an agent with an inconspicuous reader present in the crowd. (Such a move would likely prompt the manufacture and sale of lead-lined wallets to block the radio signals.) [1443]