Liberty and Justice for All!

In showing how the Republican party does not quite understand the real world, not only did the Republicans affirm their quest to obtain a constitutional ban on abortion, they also removed the reductions of abortions from their party platform.

So let me get this straight. The party who claims to be pro-life and wants to protect embryos is only caring about criminalizing abortion and not worrying about reducing their numbers? How is that for not being genuine?

Republicans also affirmed their hatred of homosexuals by continuing their support to ban gay marriages. I am sure that marriage defenders David “who would Vitter do” Vitter and Larry “toe tapping” Craig will be leading the battle charge on this one. I’m shocked they are not calling for both a return to Jim Crow laws and a constitutional amendment to keep women in the kitchen and out of the voting booth. Could the Republican Party be any more archaic?

Cross posted at Barack Obama for President.

Fred Thompson has come out with his view on abortion and it is one that will bother both sides. He doesn’t support a national ban preventing abortion, which will push the extremists in the pro-life wing of the Republican party. He also believes that it shouldn’t be a federal issue, which would upset those who vote pro-choice. If you alienate both the pro-life and pro-choice sides of the abortion argument, I find it hard to believe that you could win the White House.

Of course, Matt Lewis (on town hall) asked a very silly question.

Furthermore, if one believes life begins at conception, as Thompson says he now does, then he also believes abortion is murder.  Why wouldn’t the 14th Amendment then apply to the unborn?

The fourteenth amendment states:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (emphasis mine)

Clearly the 14th amendment does not apply to the unborn. The unborn are not born (duh), are not naturalized, and do not meet the legal definition of “person”.  If the unborn where legal “people” they would have social security numbers or some other form of identification that could be placed on them, and you would be able to write off your embryos on your taxes.

I guess I should actually limit that label to those ”pro-life” pharmacists who don’t want to dispense oral contraceptives.  

The Pope recently stated that Pharmacists should be able to be “conscientious objectors” when it comes to prescribing medications that would violate their religious beliefs. This would allow a pharmacist to refuse to dispense medications legally prescribed by a Doctor. I have several problems with this idea.

First of all, why should a pharmacist be able to impose his/her moral beliefs on someone else, especially when it comes to their own health-care? Obviously the woman seeking to purchase contraception has no moral issue with taking the medication. Obviously the doctor prescribing the contraception feels that the choice of medication is appropriate. The pharmacist should not interfere in the decision making process because it violates his/her own set of morals.

I am sure that the pharmacists know that as part of their job description that they may be asked to dispense forms of contraception. Did these pharmacists inform their employer of their moral beliefs before getting hired? I mean, if someone who observes the Jewish faith applies for a job, it is vital that he/she explain what restrictions on scheduling would be required (i.e. that no scheduling can take place from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday and on high holy days). If such a person did not inform the employer of those scheduling restrictions beforehand, then the employer would be unable to work around those restrictions. The same holds true with pro-life pharmacists. If they did not inform their employers of their religious beliefs that made them incapable of dispensing certain medications, then how is the employer to be expected to work around those restrictions?

The reason that pro-life pharmacists are hypocrites is because they are making money from the sale of those items they find so immoral. They knowingly work for a company that makes money, in part, by selling contraceptives. It doesn’t matter that they are not going to be the ones dispensing the medication. Even if some other pharmacist dispenses the contraceptives, the company is still generating a profit from the sale of these pills. So part of their paycheck comes from profits from the sale of contraceptives. If they feel that the use of a contraceptive that may prevent an embryo from implanting is murder, then they are clearly profiting from that murder. This makes them hypocrites.

The bottom line is that pharmacists know what their job will be before going to school. Nobody is forcing them to do that job and they are free to quit whenever they wish if they feel that their moral code will be violated by dispensing oral contraceptives. And to accept a paycheck from a company that makes money selling those oral contraceptives gives them absolutely no credibility.

For those who don’t know, Stare Decisis is the legal term that basically states that judicial decisions are precedents and should be followed. We heard about this a lot during the most recent discussions over President Bush’s judicial nominations. Judge Alito stated that he believed in the idea of Stare Decisis and that would help him come to decisions as a judge on the bench. I didn’t believe him for a second and it looks I was correct in doing so.