Law “at its core”

The New Neo Posted on by

In a recent thread, commenter “Rufus T. Firefly” has made an interesting point about abortion:

…[A]t its core it’s not a legal or political issue. I hate that our society has turned it into a political war with slogans, chants and parades.

I agree that “at its core” it’s not a primarily or basically legal or political issue. But that’s true of just about all the big legal questions except procedural matters (and even some of them represent larger philosophical issues).

When I was in law school so many years ago, my favorite course was something called “Philosophy of Law.” It was a new name for a course that in olden times was required but now was optional, previously known as “Jurisprudence.” It was a course that stepped back from the finer points of statutes and cases and looked at the underpinnings of our legal system and others around the world. It not only was of intense interest to me, but it was the only course in law school that I felt that way about.

That was one of the reasons I never became a lawyer; I realized that I was temperamentally unsuited for it. I couldn’t figure out a way to parlay an interest in “Philosophy of Law” into anything else besides becoming a law professor, and for a host of reasons that was off the agenda for me.

I didn’t foresee an activity known as “blogging,” but here we are.

Law is a system whereby a society tries to make rules to deal with things that sometimes can be extremely difficult to make decisions about, issues that often have very deep philosophical underpinnings. Whether there should be a presumption of guilt or a presumption of innocence is one. What constitutes murder is another: when is murder not murder but self-defense, are there mitigating circumstances and what might they be, does intent matter and when, and even what constitutes a human life and when does it begin? That last one, of course, affects abortion law.

The answers a person – and ultimately a society – might give depend on a host of things that are not law-related, although they are expressed though approval or disapproval of a certain law or a certain bill or support for a certain candidate or certain court decision. Politics and law are the practical expressions of the philosophical and even spiritual viewpoints people hold, and the codification thereof within a society.

The intensity of the pro-abortion crowd

The New Neo Posted on by

I’ve never understand the fervent embrace of abortion by some people on the left. Yes, I know the explanations the right tends to give: they’re evil, they love death, they hate children. But although I suppose that’s true of some people who seem to find abortion perfectly fine and even something to brag about, the people I know on the left are not like that at all.

So those explanations don’t work for me to explain the phenomenon as a whole. What I think is happening is something else. One of these things is that the rabidly intense and hate-filled activists you see who seem to be half in love with abortion are a small but vocal group and probably unrepresentative sample of the whole.

I remember the days when abortion was illegal, and yet plenty of people had abortions – illegal abortions, dangerous abortions. I know many who did, and most of them went on to become loving parents later on. Some regret their abortions, some don’t seem to ever think about them any more. But I believe that for most of them, their current support for the universal availability of abortion lies in their own experience of desperation and their fear of the danger inherent in an illegal abortion.

I don’t think that’s true for young people who don’t remember those days, but it’s true of many of the older ones.

On a personal note: I always had an instinctive horror of abortion and fortunately I only got pregnant when I wanted to. The way I accomplished this feat was through rigorous birth control. But pregnancies sometimes happen even when people use birth control, although fewer of them.

When Roe was passed, the idea was that abortion wouldn’t become commonplace nor would it substitute for birth control. At least, that was the rhetoric. Abortion would be “safe, legal, and rare.”

Roe helped make it safe and legal. It did not make it rare.

Nor did birth control make abortion rare, as it was supposed to. Why not? Is it because birth control isn’t perfect, is sometimes messy and always requires forethought? Is it because even people who often use it don’t always use it, and some never use it? And would more people use birth control more conscientiously if abortion had not become “safe and legal” as a backup plan?

I don’t know. I do know that sex and its connection to birth control is one of those things a great many people are not conscientious about, and this has enormous consequences.

The younger crowd – that is, people who have grown up post-Roe – have always known so many options, including many forms of birth control and also abortion that is legal in every single state. I believe that they have probably gotten used to the idea of having all those choices that include the choice to have a legal abortion from medical professionals and consider it the norm. Women can prevent a pregnancy in any number of ways, or they can end it through abortion (including, if early, the so-called morning-after pill). Or they can continue the pregnancy and keep the baby – not an option most people took in my younger days without getting married (the so-called shotgun wedding), at a time when being an unwed mother carried a huge stigma. Or they can continue the pregnancy and give the baby up for adoption, which was much more popular in my youth because of the relative lack of other options.

All of these things have huge consequences and they are usually not easy decisions.

But people do not want to give up something they’ve always been told is a right, something they’ve always experienced as a right. And they don’t want to hear complicated legal explanations for why they must give that thing up if their state votes to do so (or travel to access it). Abortion is indeed about the unborn child, but it’s an inescapable fact that the unborn child is housed in the body of the woman for up to nine months. That’s a very intimate connection, to say the least, which is why the idea that this is a question of personal body autonomy came in when in fact there obviously are two bodies involved.

Many of the most fervent abortion advocates ignore the two-body issue or trivialize it. Many abortion opponents ignore it or trivialize it as well.

I hate the topic of abortion, hate it in every way. As I’ve already said, I’ve always been repulsed by the idea of abortion for myself and even in general. But I have witnessed the despair of women who are pregnant and feel desperate to end that pregnancy. I’ve witnessed it firsthand. And I’ve heard of bitter regrets that last a lifetime about decisions that were made as teenagers. It’s just so very very sad.

[NOTE: I’ve written many times previously about abortion. Some of those posts can be found here, here, here, here, and here.]

Americans don’t approve of protests at the homes of SCOTUS justices

The New Neo Posted on by

First of all, it’s illegal – although the DOJ hasn’t seemed to mind so far, since they probably think it serves the purposes of this administration. But even Democrats don’t approve of protesting at justices’ homes. The poll was taken between May 6 and May 8 and overall 75.8% disapproved and only 15.9% approved, with the rest uncertain.

More interestingly – at least to me – is that the disapproval figures were high for both Democrats and Republicans, with Democrats at 66.6% and Republicans at 86.5% and “other” at 75.1%.

A much bigger difference between the parties arose when the question involved whether the Biden administration’s refusal to condemn the practice is likely to encourage the protests turning violent. 75.6% of Republicans thought so, whereas only 27.7% of Democrats believed it, with 54.7% of “other” agreeing.

It’s encouraging that so few respondents were in favor of the protests at justices’ homes. And it’s not surprising that the Democrats are highly reluctant to blame Biden and company for the possible violent results of not condemning these protests. That’s in line with the way so many of them have rationalized this administration’s failures right along, so they’re quite practiced at it.

My hosting service is having problems today

The New Neo Posted on by

If you’ve had problems reaching the blog today or very late last night, it’s not the blog itself but rather the hosting service. This used to happen more often, but lately (the past year?) they’ve been really good. Now this. I don’t think it affects the whole country, but it’s been affecting my ability to access the blog and to post.

Hopefully it will be cleared up soon. Of course, if you can read this notice, it means it’s working for you – at least, for the moment.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

What was Schumer thinking?

The New Neo Posted on by

See this recent comment from “Kate”:

The Democrat bill to “codify” Roe failed its procedural vote today, 51-49, with Joe Manchin voting with the Republicans. Manchin pointed out, correctly, that this would not “codify” Roe as it stands, but would expand it, invalidating any state law restricting abortion before 24 weeks and providing for a “health” exception later than that, which is a loophole allowing the procedure at any point.

For commenter Mike K, and others, who are limited pro-choice, there is (in my opinion) really nothing unreasonable about a twelve to fifteen week limit, with a provision for severe medical emergencies thereafter.

So all Chuck Schumer has accomplished with this vote is to label all Dem senators other than Manchin as pro-abortion extremists, ahead of an election which is likely to be very negative for his party.

Indeed, the phrase “codifying Roe” is an attempt to soften what Democrats were trying to do in that bill.

Why is Schumer engaging in what seems at first glance to be pointless theater? What else do Schumer and the Democrats plan (and in fact have already begun doing) to go along with it and complement it?

One approach of theirs is to present the slippery slope argument that next on the Republican ban list is interracial marriage and also homosexuality. The Democrats know that’s a lie, but they are hoping that plenty of voters will buy the lie. The engine of the left is to drum up both fear and envy, and this is the fear part.

Another idea I think Democrats have is that, if Roe is overruled, the red states that put stricter abortion laws in place will give the Democrats talking points. Even though the more stringent laws will be in red states, they believe it nevertheless will allow them to say that next abortion (and those other things – interracial marriage, etc.) will be banned nationwide if the GOP takes control of Congress. That probably will persuade some people to vote for Democrats, but it’s just as likely that the passage of extremely permissive abortion laws in blue states will turn off a lot of other people who are “pro-Choice” but not for infanticide. Killing a fetus of twenty-four weeks is infanticide now, considering what modern medicine can do, and this is what the bill they proposed would allow nationwide if passed:

The Women’s Health Protection Act would protect a woman’s right to end her pregnancy at least until ‘fetal viability’ and would require abortions be legal up until birth if ‘when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.’ The bill directs courts to ‘liberally’ interpret the legislation. The bill’s chief sponsor in the Senate, Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said that the bill ‘doesn’t distinguish’ between physical and mental health in decisions on late-term abortions.

Schumer and the Democrats also count on a cooperative MSM to frame the GOP vote against this bill’s advancement as an indication that the GOP wants to ban abortion entirely for the whole nation. While there are some Republicans who wish to do that, it does not appear to be even close to a majority position among Republicans (and in my opinion would run afoul of SCOTUS anyway). But this won’t stop the Democrats from saying it and from hoping that the public will believe it.

But why didn’t the Democrats let Collins and Murkowski’s more moderate bill be voted on? It had more chance of passing, although I don’t know whether it could have crossed that 60-vote cloture threshold. But I can only conclude that the Democrats wanted their own bill to fail so that they could keep the issue alive for the midterm – they believe (rightly or wrongly) that it’s the most winning issue they’ve got.

Here’s more about that:

The vice president ignored shouted questions on why Democrats didn’t pursue a more moderate bill with Murkowski and Collins.

Murkowski said in a statement ahead of the vote that the Women’s Health Protection Act was billed as a way to ‘codify Roe v. Wade’ but ‘in reality goes much further—nullifying state and religious freedom laws across the country in the process.’

Murkowski noted that the bill does not include the Hyde Amendment, which bans federal dollars from funding abortion, does not include conscience protections for healthcare providers who do not wish to perform abortions due to their religious beliefs and ‘allows late-term abortions without any notable restrictions.’…

While typically a Senate leader won’t bring a vote unless they feel there are the votes to pass it, Schumer says it’s important for every senator to go on the record on abortion rights. He claims the proposal is ‘very simple’.

His team also feels it’s important to show that Democrats are fighting for a woman’s ability to terminate their pregnancy.

‘[W]e are making sure that … every senator will have to vote and every, every American will see how they voted,’ Schumer said. ‘And I believe the Republican Party, the MAGA Republican Party, will suffer the consequences electorally when the American people see that.’

That’s his hope, anyway, and he’s betting on the stupidity of the American public.

What’s up with the baby formula shortage?

The New Neo Posted on by

Suddenly there’s a raft of articles about the current baby formula shortage, which seems to have been caused by a combination of the usual “supply chain problems” and a large plant closing because of possible illness and two deaths from bacterial contamination there – a contamination that doesn’t seem to have actually been related to those illnesses and deaths after all.

More here:

In many states, including Texas and Tennessee, more than half of formula is sold out in stores. Nationwide, 40 percent of formula is out of stock—a twentyfold increase since the first half of 2021. As parents have started to stockpile formula, retailers such as Walgreens, CVS, and Target have all moved to limit purchases…

Demand for formula surged as parents hoarded in 2020; then demand fell, leading suppliers to cut back production through 2021; and now, with more new mothers demanding more formula in 2022, orders are surging faster than supply is recovering.

Finally, the third factor: America’s regulatory and trade policy…

FDA regulation of formula is so stringent that most of the stuff that comes out of Europe is illegal to buy here due to technicalities like labeling requirements…

America’s formula policy warps the industry in one more way. The Department of Agriculture has a special group called WIC—short for Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children—that provides a variety of services to pregnant and breastfeeding women and their young children. It is also the largest purchaser of infant formula in the United States, awarding contracts to a small number of approved formula companies. As a result, the U.S. baby formula industry is minuscule, by design. A 2011 analysis by USDA reported that three companies accounted for practically all U.S. formula sales: Abbott, Mead Johnson, and Gerber.

The author of that piece has an anti-Trump and pro-globalist agenda, but I think the article probably summarizes the main causes of the shortage pretty well.

Also, evidence has surfaced that there’s no shortage in border facilities that house people who come to the US illegally. I’m not in favor of starving the innocent babies they bring who might be dependent on formula. But the current shortages for the general public need to be addressed, and pronto.

Does it seem to you as though children have gotten the short shrift lately, with unnecessary school closings, leftist propaganda in schools, attempts to remove limits on abortion, and shortages of baby formula?

[NOTE: I’ve also seen comments elsewhere in which people say “Why doesn’t every woman nurse?” Some women can’t, and some babies and even older children need formula for medical reasons. But women also have the right to choose not to nurse for whatever reason. Once that decision has been made and the woman’s milk supply dries up, starting again (or for the first time) is very difficult. The babies don’t always cooperate, either, if they are used to getting milk from a bottle.]

Joe Manchin has certainly surprised me

The New Neo Posted on by

Prior to Biden’s presidency, my opinion of Joe Manchin was that he often talked a good line – for a while – and then caved at the last minute. That was my perception, anyway.

So my prediction was that this was what would happen going forward. He would cave on the filibuster and all the rest, and the Democrats would be able to pass their incredibly radical agenda with his help if not his rhetoric.

But he certainly has hung in there on opposing ending the filibuster, and he’s done likewise on a number of other votes including this most recent one about allowing debate on the Democrats’ radical abortion bill. And yet he’s never become a Republican and I’m almost certain he never will, which means that at least for this session of Congress the Democrats continue to hold the majority and the power to set an agenda that goes with it.

Twitter, Musk, and Trump

The New Neo Posted on by

Musk says that if and when he owns Twitter he will allow Trump to return:

Musk said Tuesday he would reverse Twitter’s ban on former President Donald Trump if his acquisition goes through.

“Permanent bans should be extremely rare and really reserved for accounts that are bots, or scam, spam accounts… I do think it was not correct to ban Donald Trump,” Musk said at FT Live’s Future of the Car conference. “I think that was a mistake, because it alienated a large part of the country and did not ultimately result in Donald Trump not having a voice.”

That’s an odd way to put it. Would it have been okay if it had been effective in resulting in Donald Trump not having a voice? Would it have been okay if it hadn’t been permanent?

I was interested enough in the answers to these questions that I watched the part of the Musk interview involving Twitter in order to see if I could figure it out. Here’s the relevant portion, and it’s still not clear. Seems to me that when the oh-so-superior interviewer asked him a question that stated that Trump (see *NOTE below) had incited the crowd to riot on January 6th, Musk didn’t push back on that at all. It also seemed – at least, this is my interpretation – that Musk might have banned Trump at least temporarily at that point if Musk had been in charge. As I said, it’s really not clear:

It may end up being moot, because – as Musk points out – there’s still a chance the deal will fall through, and Trump has also stated he’s not coming back to Twitter no matter what. Of course, that was a few weeks ago and before Musk said he’d lift the ban.

Surprisingly, considering its performance in recent years, the ACLU supports the return of Trump to Twitter. My opinion is that Trump might end up returning; he certainly loved Twitter for a long time and used it most cleverly.

[*NOTE: Musk’s supercilious FT interviewer in that clip calls Trump “the toupeed elephant in the room.” However, Trump doesn’t wear a toupee; here are various theories about what’s going on with his odd hairdo. And Elon Musk has almost certainly had one or two hair transplant procedures (or perhaps even wears a toupee, but certainly has had some sort of hair intervention).

That interviewer shows both his ignorance and his condescending arrogance in assuming he knows what he doesn’t know, and possibly annoying Musk into the bargain – although Musk’s expression doesn’t reveal any obvious reaction, his eyes go from looking down to suddenly looking straight at the camera right after the interviewer makes that comment about Trump’s supposed toupee. But in that interview Musk changes eye position right before answering many of the questions, not just that one (often he looks up when reacting, however).

I’ve often heard people say they can always tell when a person is wearing a toupee. But I think that’s a stupid thing to say. Sometimes you can tell, with a badly made toupee. But how would you know if you’re detecting all toupees if you’re by definition not spotting the really good ones? You wouldn’t know you had missed any, unless you had an official registry of all the toupee-wearers in the world.

Hmmm, maybe I’ll write a future post about toupee-spotting arrogance.]