Culture Wars Redux: Abortion is Front and Center Again

June 16, 2019

With the recent abortion bills signed into law in Alabama and Missouri, will this be a huge issue in the 2020 election?   

______________________________

Two states have recently passed anti-abortion laws that prevent the termination of a pregnancy if a fetal "heartbeat" can be detected.  Alabama recently signed their bill into state law by Governor Kay Ivey, and it is the most restrictive bill that makes it criminal for any physician or abortion-care provider to perform an abortion.  Missouri did so as well, just a week or so after Alabama, but it was less restrictive. This is in addition to the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal money being used to provide for abortions except in the case of rape and incest. For most voters in the United States, abortion is not the single most pressing issue they worry about.  Having a good economy with stable jobs to support their families is the topic that matters most.  So why the sudden decisions to sign these bills into law?  For religious conservatives and "pro-life" supporters, ending the Supreme Court ruling of Roe v. Wade, which protects medical privacy in relation to abortion, is paramount.  Their argument underlines the belief that babies have no one to protect them, so those conservatives work to protect life itself.  Proponents of pro-choice policies feel that conservatives are just using the court's ruling and abortion itself as a way to police a woman's sex life.  By making abortion illegal, women will think twice about having sex lest they have to bring an unwanted child to term. In effect, freedom for consequence-free sex becomes an obstacle to a woman's quality of life.

A woman should have the choice to determine if she wants to keep a baby or not.  Once the baby is born into the world, what support systems do the mother and the new child have? Certainly, having access to affordable child care and post-natal services are not available to all women. It is not easy to raise a child, let alone by a single parent or mother and especially if that woman is poor, young and lacks any financial resources. Parents who resent their children for impacting their lives can have adverse effects on everyone involved.  It leads to mental health issues and untold consequences, poor relationship choices (for women, staying with an abusive partner) or with men, using violence as a means to deal with issues relating to the relationship with one or both parents.  I don't think it is as simple as "protecting life," as conservatives feel. This issue is far more complex than people acknowledge.

A recent documentary by CNN showcased the abortion debate and provided some in-depth analysis.  The primary focus was about reproductive rights and reproductive justice. The show touched on the idea that the welfare of the mother is equally important, providing women with the necessary support system for either delivering a baby or terminating a pregnancy. Hardships women face in the contentious conflict between the powerful pro-life forces and those passionate about a woman's choice in the matter was discussed in a thought-provoking way.

In this debate, few people shed light on the immense societal and cultural difficulties affecting sexual behavior in women. The burden is on them to absorb the fallout of an unplanned pregnancy.  For a fair and inclusive debate, men must be included regarding their roles as well.  For those women who want to keep their pregnancies, proper care and health for the mother are necessary.   Planned Parenthood provides screening for sexually transmitted infection (STI), cancer and sex education.  Anna Corbin on Twitter found that infant mortality rates and maternal mortality decreased in states that expanded Medicaid, and rose in states that did not. Governing.com provided information that of nine states which passed abortion-restricted bills this year, five had chosen not to expand access to Medicaid.  Having affordable and easy access to quality health care is important, and conservative states that turned down this expansion is proof that the health of the mother and child were not a priority.  If women do not have those health care choices, options for them include emergency contraception, or "Plan B."  However, in order for those drugs to be safe and effective, the person using it needs to be under medical supervision.  Without proper physician oversight, Plan B drug use can lead to bleeding, infections, later infertility, and even death.

I believe it is best to keep this personal decision to have a baby between both adults, with the final say with the woman who has to care for the healthy pregnancy. Abortion should be performed as a safe, timely and medically supervised option for women, but I also feel that society must provide women quality of life options (sex education, access to good health care) to prevent unwanted children.  If a woman makes the choice to bring a new child into her family or her life, there must be resources available for proper education, prenatal care and opportunity to nurture that life.  If access to health care is removed, it will create an unhealthy future for the mother and the child.  I know religious conservatives will not favor it, but unless there is a financial and mental health support system for the mother for the life they care so much about, it is unconscionable to force women to care for a life they do not want.

Trump, North Korea and Iran...Savvy manuvering or clumsy behavior toward War?

May 12, 2018


What is President Donald Trump's end game with North Korea and Iran?  Could he make the world a safer place, or could his actions lead to a horrible third World War?


___________________

President Trump's Summit with North Korean dictator Kim-Jong Un was great for the cameras, but what was the end result?  Kim got what he wanted, a much-hyped meeting with the Leader of the Free World, but what did President Trump get?  No serious policy questions got answered, nor was any headway made towards the North Korean regime's stockpile of nuclear weapons, and their disposal.   Both leaders just signed a non-binding "meh" agreement that said they would meet on a regular basis to continue their initial dialogue.  For those Americans who support Trump, their leader provided a huge foreign policy victory, but what was it?  For those who hate Donald Trump, they claimed that the whole summit was a charade, and nothing was gained by it.  If anything was promoted, it was the President himself, for vanity's sake.

Now, if President Trump's presidency gets the North Korean regime to open their borders to trade, economic support, medical services for the starving population, and gets the regime to end the Korean War officially, along with a drawdown of forces close to the border, then things could be seen in a positive light.  However, North Korea's "trump" card if you will, IS their nukes.  Why would they want to give them up? It gives them leverage with the outside world. Additionally, China does not want a pro-West unified Korean peninsula on China's border.  One thing Kim-Jong Un wants is an arms agreement where there would be no Western (United States) military personnel on the peninsula.  I doubt the Pentagon will allow or acquiesce to Trump's potential decision on this.  The military has too much investment in personnel and material, along with ground, air, and naval power situated in South Korea.  Also, I do not feel that the South Korean government would want the United States military to leave the peninsula, leaving the South Korean military to protect one of the world's largest economies.

I believe President Trump wants a huge foreign policy victory, but not for the betterment of US relations with its allies, or peace.  What Donald Trump wants is something that he can say HE engineered, and HE alone is the reason peace on the Korean peninsula was achieved.  His motivations are not for the country as a whole, but for him personally, and his potential business dealings with the new North Korea.  When he first took office, I was worried about a serious, world-altering conflict between the United States, South Korea and North Korea (with China and Russia covertly involved).  Now, I am waiting to see if Donald Trump can bring about at least a de-escalation of tension in that part of the world.  If that happens, then the much-maligned Leader of the Free World will have something to crow about.   That would require him to be smart, savvy and careful to not give the North Korean regime too much without getting anything significant in return.

The world anxiously awaits if this administration can do anything right.  

Robert Mueller Indictments: Is Paul Manafort the bait for the Big Fish (a.k. Donald Trump)?

Monday

November 7, 2017

Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller's Investigation for Russian Collusion 

________________

On October 30th, Independent Counsel Robert Mueller released the highly anticipated set of people who were arrested and charged with various crimes, per the announcement over the weekend.  The first set of targets were Paul Manafort and his business partner, Rick Gates, who were charged with tax evasion and money laundering. I am sure meetings with Russian contacts will be part of pre-trial hearings. Based on what I observed during the campaign, it appeared that several members of President Trump's inner circle, including his daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner, played a central role in trying to get opposition information about Hillary Clinton through Russian intermediaries.  So why are Manafort and his associates the only related campaign staff who have been indicted?  My guess is that Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller III is using Manafort to spill the beans on what he knew, and where the proverbial bodies are buried.

As campaign chair, Paul Manafort was the nerve center for Donald Trump's wacky candidacy for President of the United States.  He ran the operation and worked with supporters and others to craft his message and try to find a weakness for the Democratic nominee.  Plus, he had the ear of Trump until his family forced Manafort out midway through the campaign. Perhaps being pushed out by Ivanka and Jared will allow him to spill the beans on what he knew about the inner workings of the campaign and its alleged relationship with Vladimir Putin and his cronies.  If that is the case, then President Trump should be worried, especially if the rumors about Russian assistance prove to be true.

However, the hysteria by Democrats and members of the extreme left should be met with caution.  There could be bodies that are buried and treasonous meetings with supporters of the Kremlin, but at the same time, those rabid voices need to be tempered with the thought that nothing could come out of this.  The calls for impeachment need to be careful and met with sound evidence.  If a Democratic-controlled Congress tries to impeach President Trump, and the Mueller investigations prove no concrete collusion, then the circus that will be a Democratic chorus could backfire before the 2020 Presidential elections and cause serious problems for the unity of the country.  Impeachment proceedings that are "must-see" TV that does not present evidence or proof, but goes with hearsay, will cause an explosion of rage with Trump supporters.  In addition, future administrations (including Democratic ones) will lead to Democrats and Republicans taking turns to impeach the opposition's administration.  These types of situations lead to internal conflict and civil war.  That will tear the country apart.

If the Democrats win back the House in 2018, what they should do is focus on improving ways for Americans to vote, like making Election Day a national holiday, and providing protections against employers for anyone who wants to vote, be it working people, students, and senior citizens. For instance, there are similar laws in place for those who serve on juries. Also, if Republicans want ID cards for those who plan to vote, have the government pay for them.  Those are things a majority of Americans could get behind.
  
My hope is that Democrats focus on letting the Mueller investigations play out, and exhibit patience for the legal process to.  Impeachment of a president requires proof of high crimes and misdemeanors (which include breaking specific laws and treason).  If the evidence Robert Mueller presents is not a high bar for impeachment, Democrats raise the specter of a witch hunt.  That could provide Republicans an opportunity to preserve President Trump and his administration.  That would be an incredible result of aggressive Democratic tactics, supported by their friends in Hollywood and media companies that own MSNBC, CNN, and CBS.  The public relations firm for Republicans, Fox News, would have the ammunition it needs to show the "bias" that is exhibited by the aforementioned Democrats and their like-minded allies.  The channel would generate so much anger with Trump supporters and those in middle America and the South and within other red states.

Any investigation requires temperance, patience and researching of the facts and any other important details.  I am aware that hatred for President Trump is fierce, but the best method would be to let Robert Mueller do his job without any political pressure and be prepared for whatever rulings or proclamations that are released.  If not, any passionate plays for power and intensive Democratic pressure will start the unraveling of the respect for the rule of law and respect for the traditions, policies, and fairness itself, not just with members of Congress, the White House but among citizens of the country as well.