Political Irony

Around 38 US states have adopted “fetal homicide” laws that were intended to protect pregnant women and their unborn children from attacks from third parties (such as abusive partners). But these laws are increasingly being used to prosecute the women themselves. For example:

• A pregnant woman in Indiana became despondent after her boyfriend abandoned her and attempted to commit suicide by taking rat poison. She survived but her baby (at 34 weeks) was born a week later and died after four days. The mother is now charged with fetal murder and has been held for the last three months without bail.
• In Mississippi, a girl who became pregnant at the age of 15 had a stillbirth at 36 weeks. When it was discovered that she was also a cocaine addict, she was charged with “depraved-heart murder” of her child, and if convicted faces mandatory life imprisonment.
• A pregnant woman in Alabama was told her child likely had Down’s syndrome, and doctors suggested she terminate the pregnancy, but she declined because she is against abortion. The baby died 19 minutes after birth. But six months later she was charged with “chemical endangerment” and accused of taking drugs during the pregnancy (which she has denied).

  This case is particularly bizarre since it would not have been illegal for her to have an abortion, but it is illegal for her to do something that accidentally ends the pregnancy.

Are these cases flukes? South Carolina was one of the first states to adopt a fetal homicide law, but only one case has been brought against a man who assaulted a pregnant woman under the law, and his case was eventually overturned. But around 300 woman have been arrested for actions during their own pregnancy.

Even more ironic, these laws make it a crime to be a drug addict who becomes pregnant and loses a fetus, but not illegal for the same women to have an abortion. So while these laws claim to protect unborn children, they actually encourage abortions.

Not to mention that they are criminalizing pregnant women who lose their babies.

After New York became the latest — and most populous — state to legalize gay marriage, there were jubilant celebrations with parades, parties, and general taking of the name “gay” seriously. But has anyone noticed that the reaction from conservatives? You could be excused if you haven’t.

For example, David Frum (a former speechwriter for Dubya) was a strong opponent of gay marriage and even debated Andrew Sullivan about it 14 years ago. But a few days ago he published an opinion piece on CNN with the headline “I was wrong about same-sex marriage“. Frum says:

I find myself strangely untroubled by New York state’s vote to authorize same-sex marriage … I don’t think I’m alone in my reaction either. Most conservatives have reacted with calm — if not outright approval — to New York’s dramatic decision.

Approval? Wow!

Of course, there are always a few wing-nuts, but cries that New York will befall the same fate as Sodom are few and far between, and are mostly coming from places like the National Organization for Marriage. No big surprise there.

Ironically, the biggest silence has come from those perpetual panderers to social conservatives, the current crop of GOP presidential candidates. For example, why haven’t we seen any nasty comments from Bachmann, who not so long ago was loudly endorsing a federal constitutional amendment to outlaw same-sex marriage? But when asked about the New York law last week by Fox News host Chris Wallace, she calmly stated “under the 10th Amendment, the states have the right to set the laws that they want to set.” Even Wallace replied that he was “confused” by her position.

Is rampant gay-bashing no longer going to be a staple of right-wing rhetoric? If so, this is change I can believe in.

Scientists have been trying to figure out the psychological differences between liberals and conservatives, and a new study adds an interesting theory.

Earlier work by Jonathan Haidt showed that almost everyone in the world, regardless of culture, has five moral instincts: fairness, not harming others, group loyalty, respect for authority, and purity. But liberals emphasize the first two, showing much more concern for fairness and whether anyone is being hurt. This raises the question of where this difference comes from.

That’s where the new study comes in, which found that of the five moral instincts only the first two are innate, and the remaining three are driven by feeling threatened or fearful. When we are threatened, we are more likely to stick with our immediate group, follow authority, or distrust the impure.

The new theory ties in with numerous experiments that find that conservatives are more sensitive to threats and fear and less open to new experiences.

This might explain why political talk radio is popular with conservatives, but progressive talk radio has had more problems finding a large audience. Conservative talk radio often plays to fears and helps foster a sense of group membership. Or why conservative politicians are more willing to vote in lockstep with conservative talking points, while liberals are more willing to openly attack their fellow liberals. Or why Fox News engages in so much fear mongering.

UPDATE: Jonathan Haidt’s excellent TED talk on the moral roots of liberals and conservatives:

You can also take Heidt’s survey and learn about your own morality, ethics, and/or values.

© Ruben Bolling

It is ironic that because the Supreme Court is the court of last resort on everything, they are the final deciders in cases involving their own ethics. And yes, Scalia’s son really does work as an employment lawyer for Wal-Mart, and Clarence Thomas really did take money (and fail to report much of it) from people involved in cases he later judged. You can’t make stuff like this up.

UPDATE: Speaking of stuff you can’t make up … read this about Clarence Thomas and you will never ever again vote for a conservative Republican for president, just to make sure that more people like this don’t get appointed to the Supreme Court. All of the following are from solo dissenting opinions issued for the Supreme Court (where none of the other justices agree with Thomas, not even his fellow conservatives): that states have the right to establish an official religion; prisoners have no constitutional right to be protected from beatings by guards; teenagers and students have no free-speech rights at all; a school official strip searching a 13-year-old girl to look for two extra-strength ibuprofen (Advil) pills was “reasonable and justified”; and that the Bush administration has the right to hold an American citizen without charges or trial as an “enemy combatant”.

Serious and deliciously funny, all at the same time:

UPDATE: WikiLeaks is planning on suing MasterCard and Visa.

© Jim Morin

Is it just me, or does anyone else feel that Blago didn’t do anything that most politicians do all the time, he was just a bit more blatant about it. It seems his real transgression was that he didn’t hide the fact that he was just a money grubber for reelection funds and a jockey for political power.