Better to be Wrong?

In the 19th century, Ignaz Semmelweis (1818-1865) suggested that doctors should wash their hands between patients.  It so happened that roughly 10% to 15% of women were dying after childbirth.  However, Semmelweis was able to reduce that to less than 1% through his handwashing regimen.  He called for all doctors to do this.  They called him crazy, and he eventually died in a mental institution.  A doctor who had tried Semmelweis' handwashing found that deaths did indeed plummet.  The realization that he had killed so many of his patients led him to commit suicide.  To embrace Semmelweis was to also accept that they had fatally infected many of their patients.  For their own sanity, doctors rejected Semmelweis.

Recently, I listened to a woman - Helen Joyce - who said that the trans debate is not going to fade away.  There are too many parents who have had their children surgically transitioned.  They are committed to the trans camp for life.  To accept that transgender is a mental disorder that should be treated as such is to admit to needlessly mutilating - and likely sterilizing - their children.  Better to stay the course.  In fact, not just stay the course but, like the doctors opposing Semmelweis, denounce those who argue against transgender.  This also applies to abortion.  Those on the pro-choice side are locked into their views because the alternative means they have championed infanticide.  No one wants to swallow that pill.

A Return to Federalism

“The country is coming apart at the seams, and the fundamental reason, in my opinion, is a lack of federalism.  What I mean by that is, is whoever is in power in Washington D.C., whether it’s Republicans or Democrats, roughly 50% of the country is angry about everything that is happening.”

Mark Meckler

Yes.  Absolutely correct.  I have long argued for a federalist approach to most issues.  Abortion law is unchanged in many states.  The most vociferous defenders of Roe v. Wade live in states that have retained the same laws as they had last week.  Their states are pro-choice.  They are protesting about laws in states where they do not live.  Meckler further states:

“There’s too much being decided in D.C., and the way we solve the discord and calm everything down is to take the power away from D.C. and give it back to the states. Then we can debate these issues in the states where it was always intended to be done."

Exactly right.  Decisions made in D.C. become a one-size-fits-all solution for 50 different states.  A gun control policy ideal for New York could be impractical for Wyoming.  A water conservation law that would be perfect for Nevada might be ludicrous for Hawaii.  Each state can come to its own conclusion.

The Supreme Court imposed a policy for all 50 states in 1973.  The current court has announced that each state may decide how it wants to legislate the issue.  Rather than a majority of 9 people deciding for more than 300 million people, the individual states will come to decisions with considerably more input from the voters.

The Dobbs decision does signal a sea change in the court.  If the overbroad interpretation of the 14th amendment was incorrect in the case of Roe v. Wade, then it was also incorrect in a number of other instances.  The pendulum is starting to swing the other direction.

Meckler holds that the country is on a path of dissolution.  He calls it the Great Decoupling.  It could come apart by secession and civil war (I have addressed this with posts on Calexit and Texit) or by a return to federalism.  The central government will lose power either way, but the latter is peaceful and preserves the union.  The question is, can we return to federalism peacefully?

Counterproductive Virtue Signaling

The NBA and the WNBA has released a statement on the recent overturning of Roe v. Wade:

The NBA and WNBA believe that women should be able to make their own decisions concerning their health and future, and we believe that freedom should be protected.  We will continue to advocate for gender and health equity, including ensuring our employees have access to reproductive health care, regardless of their location.

Why is this necessary?  Their opinion on the subject is irrelevant.  In fact, it could be harmful to their business.  Michael Jordan had it right when he said that "Republicans buy sneakers, too."  Why alienate half of your audience in order to virtue signal with the other half, especially when your views have no impact on the policy?

Businesses and corporations have spent too much time picking sides on political issues where the result will be angering part of their client base.  Inevitably there follows calls to boycott this company for its stand on immigration and that company for its stand on gay marriage and that other company for its views on critical race theory.  Both the Democrats and Republicans make such demands.  Happily, these are mostly toothless efforts, but it could all go away if businesses just remained silent.

Reporter: What are your company's views on <insert cultural issue here>?

Company spokesperson: We manufacture widgets and hope both sides purchase our product.

Is that so hard?

We have evolved to this point because marketing departments sought to break into new customer demographics by taking certain stands on particular issues.  When I was in college, various companies were marketing themselves as environmentally friendly, using recycled products and so forth.  The campaign was so successful that it seemed almost every company jumped on the green bandwagon.  That was relatively benign, as there are few opposed to companies making products in an environmentally responsible way.  However, that same marketing technique used in other areas can attract some while repelling others.  Abortion is one of those areas.  Is the company gaining enough in one demographic to justify the loss of another?

The End of Roe

The Supreme Court is not an elective body.  It is not a legislature.  Occasionally, it fails to realize these points.  One reason that the Constitution places all legislative power in the Congress is that the people can unseat Congress every 2 to 6 years.  The people cannot unseat judges.  When Congress enacts a controversial law, the people can reply with an electoral stamp of approval or a house cleaning.  If the courts enact 'rulings' that have the force of law, the people have no recourse.  Yes, the legislature could enact specific laws that effectively overturn the court but that becomes exceedingly difficult if one party or the other likes the ruling.  It would take a supermajority (60) in the Senate and control of both the House and the Presidency to negate the Supreme Court.  Even that won't be enough if the court has found that the Constitution guarantees this or that.

Now that Roe has been overturned, the question of abortion returns to the state legislatures.  If state legislatures enact laws that the state's populace opposes, the house cleanings will commence.  Strange though it may seem, this ruling weakens the Supreme Court.  By negating one of its most obvious encroachments into legislating, it can resume its post of merely interpreting laws that the Congress writes. The court's transformation into a super-legislature is what has caused the hyper-partisan judicial nomination process.  For far too long, Congress has dodged its legislative responsibilities by offloading them to the bureaucracy and the courts, two branches of government that are not subject to the voters.

Next, it would be nice if the court would strike down all bureaucratic regulation-making authority.  All legislative authority is invested in Congress, not the EPA, EEOC, FDA, NIH, et al.  This outsourcing of law-making power is why the federal registry is incomprehensibly large.  Congress could never enact so many laws, which is the whole point of investing the exclusive legislative authority there.

Schumer says Roe v. Wade isn't Federal Law

"Today, I'm announcing that next week the U.S. Senate is going to vote on legislation to codify a woman's right to seek an abortion into federal law."

Senator Charles Schumer

By this very statement, Schumer explains why Roe v. Wade should be overturned.  It was never legislated and yet is it law.  That is an oxymoron.  The courts are meant to interpret and apply the laws.  Sometimes when they do this, they overreach.  Roe is such a case.  The Congress did not legislate and yet a 'law' came into existence in 1973 through a court ruling.  This 'law' was created through a hundred-year-old amendment, which had not been viewed as saying anything on the topic.  Much as the Constitution is silent on murder, theft, burglary, assault, speed limits, building codes, or medical licensing, it is also silent on abortion.  These are all issues for states to legislate, provided they don't run afoul of the specific limits listed in the Constitution.  If Roe is overturned, abortion will face severe restrictions in some states and open support in others.  This would be very like how states treat gun rights, something that is specifically protected in the Constitution.

Let the Congress legislate, and face election based on the laws they pass.  That is how the system is supposed to work.  Too often, unelected judges and bureaucrats are making laws for which the people have no recourse.

"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States"

Article 1, Section 1, US Constitution

All.  Not most.  Not the majority.  All.  If a citizen is compelled to obey, then it better have been passed by Congress and signed by the President.  If not, it's invalid.  Congress didn't legislate Roe.  It should be overturned.

Margaret Sanger Cancelled

More than 50 years after her death, Margaret Sanger's name is being removed from the New York Planned Parenthood.  It turns out that Sanger believed in eugenics and had some racist views.  Indeed, she pushed her 'reproductive health services' to black neighborhoods.  Some people shouldn't be reproducing.  Strange that it has taken so long to discover this.  Mostly, it has been kept silent lest it negatively impact the abortion cause.  Thanks to the easy access to virtually any information on the internet, the gatekeepers have lost the ability to bury certain unflattering facts about certain historical figures.  Gee, who were those gatekeepers and why were they burying this?  Qui bono?

Despite her death, her eugenic strategy continues to this day.  Though blacks constitute only 13% of the US population, they account for 36% of the abortions.  Margaret would be so proud.

Judging without Law

The Supreme Court has decided that President Obama's executive order that implemented DACA despite the Congress refusing to legislate an actual law cannot be invalided by a countering executive order by President Trump.  That presents some serious problems.  The purely executive action of one president has been enforced against a later president.  Ergo, DACA is being treated as law.  President Obama has successfully legislated his policy preference without the participation of the legislative branch!  If Biden is elected, will the Supreme Court uphold Trump's executive orders when Biden seeks to revoke them?  If yes, then presidents are legislators.  If no, the Supreme Court is picking sides rather than ruling on law.  Both of those options are disastrous for the Rule of Law.

This was not the only troubling ruling from the court.  Much as the authors of the 14th Amendment would be amazed that they had codified birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens, the authors of the 1964 Civil Rights law would be dumbfounded to learn they had provided legal protections for homosexuals and transgenders.  If the legislature can't get these policies implemented then it is up to the court to bypass the democratic process and just make it happen.  That's how we got gay marriage and now this.  Why do we have Congress?

In a democratic society, big issues must be decided through the elective bodies.  When courts mandate a solution, that is just a majority vote of 9 unelected judges rather than an extended debate that involves hundreds of legislators who must answer to voters.  Look at the abortion debate.  Rather than solve the problem, Roe v. Wade has created an irreconcilable division that has roiled the country for nearly 50 years.  It is why judicial fights are so brutal now because everyone knows that courts - not legislators - will have the final say.  That's not democratic.  That is not the rule of law, but the rule of judges.

Opportunity Missed

The Pope came to the United States and, as chance would have it, his visit coincided with a political effort to defund Planned Parenthood (PP), the major abortion provider in the United States.  A series of sting videos indicated that PP was profiting by selling the parts of the aborted fetuses.  Moreover, the Pope was scheduled to address the Congress where the Speaker, John Boehner, and the Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi, are both Catholics.  The stars had aligned in the fight against abortion and the Pope pressed Congress on the issue... of climate change.

The Papacy is not necessarily political.  Though the very teachings of Catholicism come down on one side or another of a great many political issues (e.g. abortion, capital punishment, gay marriage, welfare, etc.), it is not incumbent on the Pope to lobby or cajole governments to follow these teachings.  Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.  But this Pope isn't that kind of Pope.  He has been more political than his predecessor and has taken a decidedly leftist view of the world.  Clearly, Pope Francis has embraced climate change and he takes a dim view of capitalism.  So one wonders why, when the table was set for a victory against abortion, he put his political capital behind climate change.

I'm not Catholic and may be missing something.  Perhaps someone who follows the doings of Popes is fully aware of the reasons behind this.  It's been my understanding that the Church has a very long standing opposition to abortion while this climate change interest is very recent.  Pope John Paul II spoke about it but it was not top of his docket.  Pope Francis has elevated it considerably.