Chủ Nhật, 28 tháng 4, 2013

Republicans urge Obama to enforce Syria 'red line,' oppose deploying troops

Congressional Republicans said Sunday that President Obama must stick with his vow to take action should Syria cross a “red line” by using chemical weapons on citizens, amid such mounting evidence, but cautioned against sending in troops.

"The president has laid down the line, and it can't be a dotted line,” House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., told ABC’s “This Week.” “It can't be anything other than a red line.”

U.S. officials said last week that the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad probably used chemical weapons twice in March, amid a two-year civil war in which more than 70,000 people have been killed and hundreds of thousands more displaced.

“For America to sit on the sidelines and do nothing is a huge mistake," Georgia Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss told CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

Arizona Sen. John McCain has been among congressional Republicans most critical of the president’s stance on Syria.

He argued on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that the red line strategy has given Assad a “green light” to do almost everything up to that point -- including the use of missiles, helicopter attacks and other civilian strikes that have resulted in “atrocities on a scale that we have not seen in a long, long time.”

However, he joined a bipartisan call this weekend against sending  U.S. troops into Syria.

"The worst thing we could do is put boots on the ground," McCain said.

He and fellow Hill lawmakers fear the chemical weapons could be more dangerous in the hands of U.S. enemies or those who might overthrow Assad. And he joined in calls for the United States to be part of an international force to safeguard the weapons.

“The day after Assad [leaves] is the day that these chemical weapons could be at risk,” Chicago Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsky told ABC. “We could be in bigger, even bigger trouble.”

Maryland Democratic Sen. Ben Cardin urged Sunday afternoon on Fox against sending troops, saying that’s exactly what the Assad regime wants.

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina, also said the U.S. could safeguard the weapons without a ground force. But he said the weapons must be protected from getting into the hands of enemies.

"The next bomb that goes off in America may not have nails and glass," he told CBS, referring to the April 15 Boston Marathon bombing in which three people were killed and more than 260 others were injured.

Obama has also said Assad transferring the stockpile of weapons to terrorists would also cross the line.

The assessment that Syria used chemical weapons last month followed similar conclusions from Britain, France, Israel and Qatar -- key allies eager for a more aggressive response to the Syrian conflict.

The United States is already providing humanitarian aid and non-lethal support to Syrian opposition forces.

Obama has insisted that any use of such weapons would change his thinking about his country’s role in Syria but said he didn't have enough information to order aggressive action.

"For the Syrian government to utilize chemical weapons on its people crosses a line that will change my calculus and how the United States approaches these issues," Obama said Friday.

Both sides of the civil war accuse each other of using the chemical weapons.

The deadliest such alleged attack was in the Khan al-Assal village in the Aleppo province in March. The Syrian government called for the United Nations to investigate alleged chemical weapons use by rebels in the attack that killed 31 people.

Syria, however, has not allowed a team of experts into the country because it wants the investigation limited to the single Khan al-Assal incident, while U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has urged "immediate and unfettered access" for an expanded investigation.

 The Associated Press contributed to this report.


View the original article here

99-cent store pioneer dies a billionaire

Dave Gold, founder of the 99 Cents Only Stores, might have loved a good bargain. But he died filthy rich.

Gold, who popularized the 99-cent store concept with a string of more than 300 shops that eventually extended from California to Texas, reportedly died on Monday of an apparent heart attack. He was 80 years old.

"My dad really loved the merchandise. He would come home at the end of the day when we were younger and say, 'Look at this beautiful shampoo,'" his daughter Karen Schiffer told The Los Angeles Times.

"He would say, 'We have 50 truckloads of this Kleenex coming in.' He would get excited and pass it out to everybody."

Today, so-called dollar stores dot the American landscape like dandelions on an overgrown lawn.

But when Gold opened his first 99 Cents Only Store in Los Angeles in 1982, the concept was reserved for expired or broken products. “A retail graveyard,” is how The Times referred to such shops before Gold popularized the concept.

Gold revolutionized the idea, offering quality merchandise at a reasonable cost. The idea caught on and he reportedly amassed a fortune in the billions.

"Whenever I'd put wine or cheese on sale for $1.02 or 98 cents, it never sold out," Gold recalled in a Times interview in 2003. "When I put a 99-cent sign on anything, it was gone in no time. I realized it was a magic number. I thought, wouldn't it be fun to have a store where everything was good quality and everything was 99 cents?"


View the original article here

Christians, we must love our Muslim neighbors, too

Dr. Amir Arain is a trusted friend. We’ve worked together on several projects in the time I’ve lived in Nashville. Amir is a top Neurologist at Vanderbilt Medical Center and leading professor at Vanderbilt University.

He also happens to be the chief spokesperson on matters of faith and culture for the Nashville Islamic Center. Amir is from Pakistan but is now a U.S. citizen with all the rights and privileges I enjoy. He is as devout to his country, faith, city, and family as I am to mine.

In Dearborn, Michigan—just 20 minutes from where I grew up—some of the most loyal citizens of the U.S. make up the single largest concentration of Arabs in the world, outside of the Middle East. These leaders are doctors, teachers, military servants, and spiritual directors. They are part of the fabric of our nation, the most diverse nation in the history of the world.

I start by describing Amir and Dearborn because I immediately thought of these friends and places as the images, religion, and identities of the two brothers accused of bombing the Boston Marathon emerged in the news media last week.

As a pastor, I find it problematic that so many professing followers of Jesus continue to buy into the myth that most Muslims are hateful, violent, and vengeful people.

We are still barely able to make sense of the horrific and despicable actions allegedly carried out by Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Tamerlan Tsarnaev. If they are indeed guilty of these crimes (as it appears) their actions represent the worst of human capacity.

The (Wahhabi) segments of Islam that are committed to terrorism, violence, and radical jihad are a major problem and need to be dealt with at every level of life: government, society, religion, development, and education. However, it is not fair to assume that a billion people are violent because of a small minority.

Today, Muslims and Christians make up nearly half the world’s total population. Eighty percent of Muslims around the world do not live in the Middle East and do not speak Arabic.
Islam is as diverse a religion as we have on Planet Earth.

But here, in the U.S., Muslims make up a tiny minority (conservative estimates range from 4-6 million—there are more Detroit Tigers fans than Muslims).

As a pastor, I find it problematic that so many professing followers of Jesus continue to buy into the myth that most Muslims are hateful, violent, and vengeful people. Are we really willing to suggest that 1.2 billion people are evil?

Consider this for a moment: In ancient Israel, during the time of Jesus, Samaritans were a substantial rival religious group to Jews inhabiting a region between Galilee and Judea. Samaritans were like Jews, but not like Jews.

In Jesus’ parable of the “good” Samaritan (Luke 10), he tells the story of two orthodox Jewish leaders who see a fellow Jew beat up on the side of a dangerous road. Both religious leaders look but they don’t see; they choose not to help. Until a Samaritan walks by, the Jew in the ditch has no hope.

The Samaritan comes upon the left-for-dead Jew and has compassion. The Samaritan looks and he sees.

The parable is striking because Jesus essentially challenges his Jewish audience to put themselves in the ditch and imagine who they would least likely expect or desire to rescue them from a precarious situation.

Jesus wanted his audience to see the Samaritan as capable of showing much more mercy than the average Jew would allow.

Jesus wanted his audience to see the Samaritan as a person capable of providing intense mercy.
In addition, Jesus made a Samaritan a hero and he taught and healed in Samaritan regions of Israel.

He also taught, honored, interacted, and healed Samaritan individuals. When Jesus’ disciples wanted to literally kill a group of Samaritans, Jesus rebuked them.

Many leaders today call for Christians to be afraid of Muslims, not to trust “them” because “those people” only want to kill, harm, and destroy Christianity and Western Civilization.
Others, of a different ideological viewpoint, insist that all religions—including Christianity and Islam—are the same; that we are all “traveling up the same mountain, taking different paths.”
Just because I don’t call Amir Arain my brother in the faith, doesn’t mean he isn’t my neighbor.
According to Jesus, everyone is a neighbor, and there’s no one who’s not my neighbor.

Yes, I disagree with Amir on the precise meaning of Jesus’ life and because of this—not in spite of— I believe that the real test of my disagreement with Amir is in the depth of my commitment to loving Amir as Jesus has loved both us.

Because the real test of the Christian faith, in the foreseeable future, is in the church’s willingness to love those who do not subscribe to the Jesus Way.

Josh Graves is the author of The Feast and Heaven on Earth (Abingdon Press)-which comes out Dec. 1. He blogs at www.joshuagraves.com and tweets from @joshgraves.


View the original article here

In a first, black voter turnout rate passes whites

  • Obama_Cala(2).jpg

    President Barack Obama speaks at the 2013 Planned Parenthood National Conference in Washington, Friday, April 26, 2013. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)AP2013

America's blacks voted at a higher rate than other minority groups in 2012 and by most measures surpassed the white turnout for the first time, reflecting a deeply polarized presidential election in which blacks strongly supported Barack Obama while many whites stayed home.

Had people voted last November at the same rates they did in 2004, when black turnout was below its current historic levels, Republican Mitt Romney would have won narrowly, according to an analysis conducted for The Associated Press.

Census data and exit polling show that whites and blacks will remain the two largest racial groups of eligible voters for the next decade. Last year's heavy black turnout came despite concerns about the effect of new voter-identification laws on minority voting, outweighed by the desire to re-elect the first black president.

"The 2012 turnout is a milestone for blacks and a huge potential turning point."

- Andra Gillespie, political science professor at Emory University

William H. Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution, analyzed the 2012 elections for the AP using census data on eligible voters and turnout, along with November's exit polling. He estimated total votes for Obama and Romney under a scenario where 2012 turnout rates for all racial groups matched those in 2004. Overall, 2012 voter turnout was roughly 58 percent, down from 62 percent in 2008 and 60 percent in 2004.

The analysis also used population projections to estimate the shares of eligible voters by race group through 2030. The numbers are supplemented with material from the Pew Research Center and George Mason University associate professor Michael McDonald, a leader in the field of voter turnout who separately reviewed aggregate turnout levels across states, as well as AP interviews with the Census Bureau and other experts. The bureau is scheduled to release data on voter turnout in May.

Overall, the findings represent a tipping point for blacks, who for much of America's history were disenfranchised and then effectively barred from voting until passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965.

But the numbers also offer a cautionary note to both Democrats and Republicans after Obama won in November with a historically low percentage of white supporters. While Latinos are now the biggest driver of U.S. population growth, they still trail whites and blacks in turnout and electoral share, because many of the Hispanics in the country are children or noncitizens.

In recent weeks, Republican leaders have urged a "year-round effort" to engage black and other minority voters, describing a grim future if their party does not expand its core support beyond white males.

The 2012 data suggest Romney was a particularly weak GOP candidate, unable to motivate white voters let alone attract significant black or Latino support. Obama's personal appeal and the slowly improving economy helped overcome doubts and spur record levels of minority voters in a way that may not be easily replicated for Democrats soon.

Romney would have erased Obama's nearly 5 million-vote victory margin and narrowly won the popular vote if voters had turned out as they did in 2004, according to Frey's analysis. Then, white turnout was slightly higher and black voting lower.

More significantly, the battleground states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida and Colorado would have tipped in favor of Romney, handing him the presidency if the outcome of other states remained the same.

"The 2012 turnout is a milestone for blacks and a huge potential turning point," said Andra Gillespie, a political science professor at Emory University who has written extensively on black politicians. "What it suggests is that there is an `Obama effect' where people were motivated to support Barack Obama. But it also means that black turnout may not always be higher, if future races aren't as salient."

Whit Ayres, a GOP consultant who is advising GOP Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a possible 2016 presidential contender, says the last election reaffirmed that the Republican Party needs "a new message, a new messenger and a new tone." Change within the party need not be "lock, stock and barrel," Ayres said, but policy shifts such as GOP support for broad immigration legislation will be important to woo minority voters over the longer term.

"It remains to be seen how successful Democrats are if you don't have Barack Obama at the top of the ticket," he said.

------

In Ohio, a battleground state where the share of eligible black voters is more than triple that of other minorities, 27-year-old Lauren Howie of Cleveland didn't start out thrilled with Obama in 2012. She felt he didn't deliver on promises to help students reduce college debt, promote women's rights and address climate change, she said. But she became determined to support Obama as she compared him with Romney.

"I got the feeling Mitt Romney couldn't care less about me and my fellow African-Americans," said Howie, an administrative assistant at Case Western Reserve University's medical school who is paying off college debt.

Howie said she saw some Romney comments as insensitive to the needs of the poor. "A white Mormon swimming in money with offshore accounts buying up companies and laying off their employees just doesn't quite fit my idea of a president," she said. "Bottom line, Romney was not someone I was willing to trust with my future."

The numbers show how population growth will translate into changes in who votes over the coming decade:

--The gap between non-Hispanic white and non-Hispanic black turnout in 2008 was the smallest on record, with voter turnout at 66.1 percent and 65.2 percent, respectively; turnout for Latinos and non-Hispanic Asians trailed at 50 percent and 47 percent. Rough calculations suggest that in 2012, 2 million to 5 million fewer whites voted compared with 2008, even though the pool of eligible white voters had increased.

--Unlike other minority groups, the rise in voting for the slow-growing black population is due to higher turnout. While blacks make up 12 percent of the share of eligible voters, they represented 13 percent of total 2012 votes cast, according to exit polling. That was a repeat of 2008, when blacks "outperformed" their eligible voter share for the first time on record.

--White voters also outperformed their eligible vote share, but not at the levels seen in years past. In 2012, whites represented 72 percent of total votes cast, compared to their 71.1 percent eligible vote share. As recently as 2004, whites typically outperformed their eligible vote share by at least 2 percentage points. McDonald notes that in 2012, states with significant black populations did not experience as much of a turnout decline as other states. That would indicate a lower turnout for whites last November since overall voter turnout declined.

--Latinos now make up 17 percent of the population but 11 percent of eligible voters, due to a younger median age and lower rates of citizenship and voter registration. Because of lower turnout, they represented just 10 percent of total 2012 votes cast. Despite their fast growth, Latinos aren't projected to surpass the share of eligible black voters until 2024, when each group will be roughly 13 percent. By then, 1 in 3 eligible voters will be nonwhite.

--In 2026, the total Latino share of voters could jump to as high as 16 percent, if nearly 11 million immigrants here illegally become eligible for U.S. citizenship. Under a proposed bill in the Senate, those immigrants would have a 13-year path to citizenship. The share of eligible white voters could shrink to less than 64 percent in that scenario. An estimated 80 percent of immigrants here illegally, or 8.8 million, are Latino, although not all will meet the additional requirements to become citizens.

"The 2008 election was the first year when the minority vote was important to electing a U.S. president. By 2024, their vote will be essential to victory," Frey said. "Democrats will be looking at a landslide going into 2028 if the new Hispanic voters continue to favor Democrats."

------

Even with demographics seeming to favor Democrats in the long term, it's unclear whether Obama's coalition will hold if blacks or younger voters become less motivated to vote or decide to switch parties.

Minority turnout tends to drop in midterm congressional elections, contributing to larger GOP victories as happened in 2010, when House control flipped to Republicans.

The economy and policy matter. Exit polling shows that even with Obama's re-election, voter support for a government that does more to solve problems declined from 51 percent in 2008 to 43 percent last year, bolstering the view among Republicans that their core principles of reducing government are sound.

The party's "Growth and Opportunity Project" report released last month by national leaders suggests that Latinos and Asians could become more receptive to GOP policies once comprehensive immigration legislation is passed.

Whether the economy continues its slow recovery also will shape voter opinion, including among blacks, who have the highest rate of unemployment.

Since the election, optimism among nonwhites about the direction of the country and the economy has waned, although support for Obama has held steady. In an October AP-GfK poll, 63 percent of nonwhites said the nation was heading in the right direction; that's dropped to 52 percent in a new AP-GfK poll. Among non-Hispanic whites, however, the numbers are about the same as in October, at 28 percent.

Democrats in Congress merit far lower approval ratings among nonwhites than does the president, with 49 percent approving of congressional Democrats and 74 percent approving of Obama.

William Galston, a former policy adviser to President Bill Clinton, says that in previous elections where an enduring majority of voters came to support one party, the president winning re-election -- William McKinley in 1900, Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1936 and Ronald Reagan in 1984 -- attracted a larger turnout over his original election and also received a higher vote total and a higher share of the popular vote. None of those occurred for Obama in 2012.

Only once in the last 60 years has a political party been successful in holding the presidency more than eight years -- Republicans from 1980-1992.

"This doesn't prove that Obama's presidency won't turn out to be the harbinger of a new political order," Galston says. "But it does warrant some analytical caution."

Early polling suggests that Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton could come close in 2016 to generating the level of support among nonwhites as Obama did in November, when he won 80 percent of their vote. In a Fox News poll in February, 75 percent of nonwhites said they thought Clinton would make a good president, outpacing the 58 percent who said that about Vice President Joe Biden.

Benjamin Todd Jealous, president of the NAACP, predicts closely fought elections in the near term and worries that GOP-controlled state legislatures will step up efforts to pass voter ID and other restrictions to deter blacks and other minorities from voting. In 2012, courts blocked or delayed several of those voter ID laws and African-Americans were able to turn out in large numbers only after a very determined get-out-the-vote effort by the Obama campaign and black groups, he said.

Jealous says the 2014 midterm election will be the real bellwether for black turnout. "Black turnout set records this year despite record attempts to suppress the black vote," he said.


View the original article here

Thứ Sáu, 26 tháng 4, 2013

White House says it's still weighing response to evidence Syria used chemical weapons

The White House said Friday that more evidence is necessary to confirm the Syrian government used chemical weapons against its people, but if that proves to be true, it would be a "game changer."

President Obama addressed the issue in the Oval Office, where he was meeting with Jordan's King Abdullah II, though he didn't commit to any action yet in Syria.

"I have been very clear publicly, but also privately, that for the Syrian government to utilize chemical weapons on its people crosses a line that will change my calculus on how the United States approaches these issues. This is not an on or off switch. This is an ongoing challenge that all of us have to be concerned about," he said. 

Much talk has been made of Obama's  suggestion that the use of deadly chemical agents could be the "red line" for the U.S.to intervene in the two-year-old Syrian war.

"I think that in many ways a line's been crossed when we see tens of thousands of innocent people killed by a regime, but the use of chemical weapons and the danger that is poses to the international community, to neighbors of Syria, the potential of chemical weapons to get into the hands of terrorists, all of those things add increased urgency to what is already a significant security problem and humanitarian problem in the region," Obama told reporters.

Earlier Friday, White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters that the U.S. continues to investigate evidence that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons in its fight against rebels, but he resisted setting a timetable for possible action.

“It has been assessed by our intelligence community with varying degrees of confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria, specifically the chemical agent sarin," Carney said. "Now we are working to establish credible and corroborated facts to build on this intelligence assessment in order to establish a definitive judgment as to whether or not the president's red line has been crossed.”

When pressed by reporters, Carney made it clear there is no projected plan.``I'm not going to set a timeline, because the facts need to be what drives this investigation, not a deadline,''

Meanwhile, two Syrian officials denied Friday that its government forces had used chemical weapons against opposition forces. A government source told the Associated Press that Syrian President Bashar Assad’s army  "did not and will not use chemical weapons even if it had them."

Sharif Shehadeh, a Syrian lawmaker,also said the Syrian army "can win the war with traditional weapons" and has no need for chemical weapons.

Carney said President Obama would consider several paths of action if it’s determined that Syria used chemical weapons.``He retains all options to respond to that, all options,'' Carney said. ``Often when people mention all options are on the table, everyone just talks about military force. It's important to remember that there are options available to a commander in chief in a situation like this that include but are not exclusive to that option.''

Top-ranking lawmakers on both sides of the aisle declared Thursday that the "red line" in Syria had been crossed, calling for "strong" U.S. and international intervention after administration officials revealed that the intelligence community thinks chemical weapons were used. 

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate intelligence committee, and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., were among those urging swift action. 

McCain, who has long called for more involvement in Syria, voiced concern that the administration would use "caveats" to avoid acting on the new intelligence. He said America's enemies are paying "close attention" to whether the U.S. follows through, as the White House signaled it wanted to see more proof before responding to the new information. 

"I worry that the president and the administration will use these caveats as an excuse not to act right away or act at all," McCain told Fox News. "The president clearly stated that it was a red line and that it couldn't be crossed without the United States taking vigorous action." 

He called for the U.S. to help establish a no-fly zone and "safe zone" in Syria, as well as provide weapons to the "right people." 

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel first revealed the intelligence assessment, which was detailed in a letter to select members of Congress, while speaking to reporters on a visit to Abu Dhabi. The administration then released those letters, which said U.S. intelligence determined with varying degrees of confidence that "the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria, specifically the chemical agent sarin." 

Secretary of State John Kerry further confirmed that there were two documented instances of chemical weapons use. 

The White House, however, stressed that this was not enough to confirm how the nerve gas was released -- though acknowledged it is "very likely" to have originated with the regime of Bashar Assad -- and pressed the United Nations for a "comprehensive" investigation. The letter from the White House director of the Office of Legislative Affairs to leading members of the Senate Armed Services Committee said the assessment was based in part on "physiological samples." 

A White House official also urged caution, invoking the Iraq war as an example of why the administration should be absolutely certain before going forward. 

"Given our own history with intelligence assessments, including intelligence assessments related to WMD, it's very important that we are able to establish this with certainty and that we are able to provide information that is airtight ... to underpin all of our decision-making," the official said. "That is, I think, the threshold that is demanded given how serious this issue is." 

A senior U.S. defense official told Fox News the Defense Department has been preparing a wide range of contingency plans for military involvement in Syria for the past year. President Obama has seen the plans and is fully aware of those options.

The options, according to this official, range from establishing no-fly zones to creating humanitarian zones to launching strikes on chemical weapons sites, select regime leadership and other targets. The official emphasized that no decisions have been made about whether to further involve the U.S. military in Syria and that there are still many questions that need to be answered first. 

A United Nations spokesman said the chemical weapon findings reinforce the need for U.N. officials to "be given the requested swift and unfettered access to Syria that it needs to determine whether chemical weapons have indeed been used." 

McCain, speaking to Fox News, said in his view the red line "was crossed." 

Feinstein, an important voice on matters of intelligence and security, also said it is "clear" those lines have been crossed and "action must be taken to prevent larger scale use." 

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., reacting to the reports Thursday, said the "number one" goal should be to "secure the chemical weapons before they fall into the wrong hands." 

"I think the red line's been crossed and the question is, now what?" Graham said on Fox News. 

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., also said in a statement the assessment is "deeply troubling and, if correct, means that President Obama's red line has certainly been crossed." 

But Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., argued that it is not in the United States' "best interest" to go into Syria. "We cannot be absolutely sure about the extent to which Assad's forces have used chemical weapons, although we know they have them," he said in a statement. 

Asked if this crossed a "red line" for the U.S., Hagel likewise said they are still trying to assess. 

"It violates every convention of warfare," he said. 

The Associated Press contributed to this report.


View the original article here

The truth about the Kermit Gosnell trial

Closing arguments are expected next week in the trial of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, the late-term Philadelphia abortionist. As the trial nears conclusion media coverage of the gruesome testimony in the case has intensified.  

A coordinated effort by pro-life bloggers and citizens on Twitter managed to break through a mass media cone of silence, and now commentators across the political and pro-life/pro-choice spectrum are offering their perspectives.  

Some of those perspectives are startling. So, too, are some of the omissions about the entire chain of events – 40 years long and counting – that Gosnell represents.

Among the startling responses is the claim that anti-abortion policies produced Gosnell’s depredations. 

The stories emerging from the Gosnell trial are dark, bloody and remorseful, a repudiation of what health and happiness should be.

In a piece for Slate magazine’s “MoneyBox” blog, Matthew Yglesias declares his sympathy with the view that Gosnell is the logical residue of a legal and business culture in which there are few late-term abortion providers: “Making it difficult to establish an above-board competitive marketplace with multiple legal providers of late-term abortion facilities ensures that the demand for the procedure will be pushed into low-quality channels.”  (A rare example, by the way, of a liberal commentator embracing a robust health care marketplace and linking quality to it.)

Apart from its cold calculus, this perspective on Gosnell overlooks the more basic reason why there isn’t a thriving marketplace of doctors willing to kill babies nearly or fully capable of living outside the womb:  The practice itself is in no way one of the arts of medicine.  

Few are drawn to it because few people with rarefied medical skills see the fulfillment of their years of training in wrenching apart a baby limb from limb. 

For mothers and babies alike, the stories emerging from the Gosnell trial are dark, bloody and remorseful, a repudiation of what health and happiness should be.

Put more simply, what Gosnell was doing was objectively wrong and obviously hurtful. 

Moreover, lawlessness – and not a set of pro-life laws – is what gave birth to Gosnell’s crimes, and that spirit of lawlessness, of no limits and no scruples, dates back to the period before Roe. v. Wade. 

Tim Carney of the Washington Examiner has laid out in detail how Gosnell vaulted into public view in 1972 through his involvement in another gruesome episode, the “Mother’s Day Massacre.”  

In full view of public television cameras, Gosnell brought 15 poor Chicago women to Philadelphia to undergo second-trimester abortions induced by inserting a mass of razor-sharp plastic coils into their wombs.  

The so-called “super coil” method was the invention of Harvey Karman, an ex-con with a diploma-mill Ph.D., who was a darling of International Planned Parenthood.

That Gosnell was able to participate in a highly publicized event that left nine of its 15 “subjects” with major medical complications and suffer no penalty was a harbinger of the path he would take over four decades.  

Legal abortion resembles the back alley because the two overlapped to an overwhelming degree.  

In the early days of legal abortion, Mary Calderone, at the time national medical director of Planned Parenthood, reported an estimate that 90 percent of illegal abortionists pre-Roe were, in fact, physicians.  Then-Planned Parenthood president Alan Guttmacher’s estimate was 80 percent.      

The miracles of modern perinatology, the ability to save the lives of babies born as early as 24 weeks’ gestation, the marvels of fetal surgery that have inspired specialties at children’s hospitals across the country, including Philadelphia’s pioneering unit – these are the spires and sinews of medical progress.

The Gosnell trial is a stark reminder of another fact.  The women who entered the infernal portal of 3801 Lancaster Ave suffered from an array of debilities, chief among them the absence of hope.  

In a sex-saturated society availed of an arsenal of pregnancy-preventing and –destroying drugs, devices and, yes, abortion clinics, they turned to a facility that should have shocked and repelled them from the moment they saw its battered and blood-stained environs.  

Some would argue that their neighborhoods lack enough family planning centers; more importantly, they lack enough families. There is a relationship poverty that runs deeper than any other kind.  Low expectations can be a hard form of bigotry.

Despite this, in the neighborhood of Kermit Gosnell there were advanced hospitals, Catholic pregnancy and adoption services, and two pregnancy care centers: clean, well-lit places where they and their children would have been valued and cared for.  

Do we need more such centers, more highlighting of their work, more funding? Yes, and we need more obstetricians as well, and reform of a tort law system that is driving out quality physicians by the hundreds and leaving in place some whose victims are too impoverished and too ashamed to sue them. 

Incredibly, part of the agenda of NARAL is to drive pregnancy care centers out of business or block their advertising.  They label them “fake clinics.”  

Meanwhile, the Obama administration continues to pursue its over-the-top “preventive services mandate,” fully aware that one of its primary effects may be to close religious hospitals that care for millions of America’s poor and hundreds of thousands of expectant mothers.

Building multiple late-term abortion clinics in search of a bazaar of absolute choice is the last thing our nation’s poor neighborhoods need.  

We would do well instead to seek a new birth of compassion, reinvestment of time and energy in the Hippocratic ideal of “doing no harm,” and the affirmation of the equal value of every human life.

Chuck Donovan is President of the Charlotte Lozier Institute, the research arm of the Susan B. Anthony List.


View the original article here

Allowing non-citizens to participate in jury duty won't fix troubled system

The California State Assembly voted Thursday to amend its juror law, which currently applies only to to U.S. citizens, to include “lawfully present immigrants.” The legislation is now headed to the state Senate for another vote. California is the first state to attempt such an amendment. 

The amendment reads in part:

"SECTION 1. Section 203 of the Code of Civil Procedure is amended to read: 203. (a) All persons are eligible and qualified to be prospective trial jurors, except the following: (1) Persons who are not lawfully present immigrants or citizens of the United States"

California legislators who voted in favor of this preposterous law clearly forgot that American citizenship is sacred.

People come to our country both legally and illegally because our country is such a beacon of freedom and opportunity. California is home to approximately 23 percent of the nation's undocumented immigrants, accounting for 1 of every 15 of its residents. Of course, we also have those who enter legally: In 2012 alone, over 1 million people became legal permanent residents of the U.S.

America is founded upon a Constitution filled with freedoms and rights, yet her citizens also have duties and obligations. One duty is that we, as citizens, are required to serve on a jury if called upon to do so. Each year, over 30 million Americans are summoned to jury duty.

Yet federal Judge William G. Young (nominated by President Reagan) has lamented, "The American jury system is dying. It is dying faster in the federal courts than in the state courts. It is dying faster on the civil side than that on the criminal side, but it is dying. It will never go entirely, but is is already marginalized.”

I slightly disagree with Judge Young. The jury system is not dying, but it is definitely struggling. Jury duty is not fun -- in fact, it is dreadful.

If summoned, you must appear or risk being fined by the court. A summons is an order. You are required to spend your day in an often dingy room at the courthouse, guarded by a sheriff, with other people who also have 1,000 better things to do than wait to be called into the courtroom.

If you are actually selected to sit on a jury, you may miss weeks or months of work.

The compensation is laughably minimal -- you cannot even buy a pair of socks with your “paycheck.”

Still this non-glamorous duty to our country and to each other rests at the core of American values and principles. We have a constitutional right to be judged by our peers, and we have a constitutional duty to judge the accused.

BOTTOM LINE:  As citizens, we have a few chores that we must perform in order to keep America the greatest country in the world.

The solution to a struggling jury system is not to give non-citizen immigrants the same benefits as American citizens. We have a right to be tried by a "jury of our peers." Non-citizens are not our peers. Instead, our elected officials must work together from across the aisle to craft a legislative solution to problems with citizens' failures to participate in jury duty.

Tamara Holder is an attorney and Fox News legal analyst. 


View the original article here