Late yesterday afternoon, a Trump judge in Amarillo decided it was a really good idea to take Mifepristone off the market, a drug that has been safely used to induce medical abortions for 20 years.  The lawsuit he ruled on was filed by an anti-choice group that wasn’t happy that the SCOTUS decision to take away the constitutional right to healthcare from millions of women didn’t go far enough.  They wanted to take away the right to abortion from ALL women in the US.  The group venue shopped, taking the case to a radical judge Amarillo and got the result they wanted; for the first time in US history, a federal judge interfered with the FDA’s authority by banning the drug. The plaintiffs lied that the drug was untested and dangerous, which is bullshit.  Of course, since their case was bullshit, the judge bought it and banned it.  Another judge in Washington State almost immediately issued a contradicting order, which will likely throw the case straight to the SCOTUS.  Recall that the SCOTUS, which now has a 6 -3 ultraconservative majority gained by cheating, could likely generate a nationwide ban on the drug.  Even though the SCOTUS threw the abortion issue to the states, I have no confidence the court will remain consistent by throwing this back to the states, since their rulings are now controlled by ideology, not the law.

Here’s a solution to the Mifepristone ban, and it’s pretty straightforward – we need a lawsuit filed that bans Viagra and all other ED treatments.  If a federal judge can intervene in the FDA’s decisions over women’s healthcare, certainly another federal judge can to the same thing men’s healthcare, right?  Besides protecting men’s health, banning Viagra will prevent millions of pregnancies, which is a huge side benefit.

After all, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

 

Two of my favorite songs on my playlist are “Vegetable Man” and “Scream Thy Last Scream” by Pink Floyd. They were not officially released until the last decade because the band didn’t want to make them available for public consumption. They represented a time in Syd Barrett’s life when he was in a really bad way. Roger Waters said that they were akin to showing naked pictures of an aging actress.

In a similar way, saying anything about the rise and fall of Hershel Walker feels wrong in many instances. You have someone that is very clearly not all there. You can’t know whether a former athlete has CTE until you do the final autopsy, but we are about as sure about this as we can of anyone that played in the NFL.

However, Walker represents something bigger than himself. Everything old is new again in politics. Those that know U.S. history remember learning about the Know Nothing Party. The similarities don’t just end with the name. The platform is also pretty similar when we consider the brand of conservative politicians coming out these days. Give those pre-Civil War guys Twitter and 24 hour news and I imagine they would have come up with something eerily similar.

What can we say about Walker? He said he graduated with honors from the University of Georgia. He didn’t graduate. He said he was in law enforcement. He wasn’t. He fathered multiple children out of wedlock. He didn’t tell us the truth about that. The children we do know about all seem to be coming out against him.

Finally, we get the news that he funded an abortion in 2009. Yet, this is where you get into a pickle if you are a true progressive. We want people to be able to have the choice to have an abortion. So, ultimately do we care whether he funded one? The quick and simple answer is that we don’t, but that isn’t really the point. The point is that you don’t get to run on a sanctimonious platform when you have entire collection of skeletons in the closet.

Watching conservatives fumble around with representatives and candidates that are clearly intellectually deficient is hilarious on one level, scary on another, and just pitiful on the rest. Whether it’s not knowing that “wanton” murder doesn’t refer to the soup found in Chinese restaurants or watching Walker be told that the lieutenant governor said something about him, watch him ask who the lieutenant governor was, be told who he was, and then ask what that guy was currently doing.

Commenting about such things is the true no win scenario. No one should make fun of half-wits. It would be akin to making fun of someone with a physical handicap. Yet, here we are and this is the field that the GOP has laid down before us. At some point we need to put the blame on the powers that be that parade these folks out there for us to exploit and laugh at. Laughing feels utterly awful, but at a certain point you just can’t help it.

We went on a family vacation to San Francisco. It used to be that you could go away and leave your troubles behind. With connectivity, all of our troubles seem to follow us everywhere. In the span of a week we saw two landmark Supreme Court cases hit the news.

Everything old is new again. It would be wrong for me to suggest the court is reaching new ground here. In a way it is, but for the most part we have been here before. Brown vs. Board of Education created new law back in 1954. It also likely went against what the majority of the population felt at the time. We had no public opinion polling back then, so that is merely a guess, but I feel like it is a good guess.

The court is there to interpret the constitution and not to bend to the whims of a fickle majority. I think we can agree with that much. However, it is fair to question whether following legal precedent matters and conservatives have long maintained a disdain for activist judges. The court (by vote of 6-3 both times) just actively created new law on both counts. They created two radically different interpretations of the constitution on both counts.

There is also no denying what they are after. Clarence Thomas mentioned gay marriage in his majority opinion and we know our very own John Cornyn mentioned Brown vs. Board of Education. It doesn’t take much of a stretch to include interracial marriages as well. We are literally going back a century on human rights.

In an odd way, the backdrop of San Francisco is kind of telling here. You have never seen a town more into Pride Month than San Francisco. You couldn’t swing a dead cat without hitting a pride flag. Stores had pride messages painted on their windows. Different companies offered pride products. It was the most inclusive, welcoming environment I had ever seen. How does all of this happen in the same country?

It happens because a minority of citizens have managed to control government and the courts. The GOP has effectively won a majority in a presidential election once since 1988. Many of their politicians have suggested that we live in a center-right country right now. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that based on national voting records or public opinion polling. None.

What there is evidence of is plenty of gerrymandering and voter suppression tactics that have kept progressivism at bay. This is where things get dicey. It is fair for people to look at Democrats in general and liberals and progressives specifically and claim they have failed. They didn’t codify abortion into law. They have been ineffective at stopping gerrymandering and have allowed the courts to be dominated by conservatives. There is no denying that.

The question is what happens now. We can go down two roads. One road would be for enough voters to punish Democrats either by staying home or voting for third party candidates. That way, you’d insure a Republican victory. The second road is to recognize the threat and where it is coming from. There you would overwhelm the GOP with a blue wave and then slowly rebuild what they have broken.

There are some that think the first road is tempting. After all, maybe if things get really bad then systemic change will be easier to obtain. That thinking has two problems. First, you are hurting millions along the way and secondly you are assuming there will be a democracy left to get back. Clearly, the GOP doesn’t care what the majority wants. They never have. Your only real bet is to block them from tearing this thing down any further.

The last week has demonstrated so much about the battle lines in America. In many ways, I suppose it makes so little sense to those outside of the United States. It barely makes sense to those of us here. We are simultaneously becoming more open and more tolerant of activities that might be considered on the edges of societal norms while others desperately pass laws to prevent those things.

Some people call these things victimless crimes. That designation obviously depends on multiple perspectives. Often times there are victims but they are not necessarily a victim of the crime itself, but all of the danger surrounding the so-called crime.

As everyone knows, we were settled by Puritans. I liken them to the Southern Baptists and non-denominational Evangelical Christians of today. Nearly everything pleasurable was a sin. Therefore, it was strictly prohibited. I don’t think most people have thought about how this played on our collective psyche even to the present day.

You cannot drink. You cannot dance. You cannot read strange books. You cannot partake of other substances. You certainly cannot have sex outside of marriage or participate in any activity that might nudge you down that road. Since this is the case, you cannot have access to anything that would promote safe sex, access to safe drugs, or allow anyone to make responsible choices.

What we understand today (and I imagine even then) is that when you deny someone anything pleasurable and tell them that doing that thing is a sin they will begin to crave it. They always joked that the best way to keep a Baptist from drinking your beer is to invite a second Baptist. As silly as the notion is, some people still think that if no one sees them do it then they never did it.

This has produced some widespread problems. I’m not sure how one measures such a thing, but it has been reported that the United States sits behind only Russia in the rate of alcoholics in society. That’s not total alcohol consumed. It’s not even alcohol consumed per capita. It is the percentage of people that have a problem with the amount of alcohol they consume.

We can extend this to other situations. One of my daughter’s friends nearly died from an overdose. It seems she bought some marijuana and still is not sure what it was laced with. Some dealers love to do that. I suppose that even if it were legal universally, some people would still try to find it cheaper or without the hassles of acquiring it legally.

All that being said, we can’t help but wonder how much making it legal and available through traditional means would prevent things like that. We can’t help but wonder how many fewer people would have addiction issues if our attitudes towards alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana were healthier. We can’t help but wonder how many fewer people would need abortions if they had access to birth control measures and helpful education about sexual activity in general.

Unfortunately, we can’t have these things because we are still stuck mentally in 17th century New England. These things are bad. You cannot have those things and we certainly can’t talk about them. Furthermore, if we allow those things then the slippery slope comes in and we would then see an increase in those other things that all of us find abhorrent.

Instead, we could discuss things like adults. Legalizing marijuana doesn’t necessarily mean a sharp increase in the use of harder drugs we all agree should be illegal. Allowing for and helping children understand safe sex doesn’t mean a sharp increase will definitely occur. If you give someone a bowl of ice cream they won’t devour the carton. If you show it to them and them tell them they can’t have any, you might wake up to find the carton empty. This is our collective American experience.

The number one comment this week has been a rebuke of sorts. It seems I still hold onto my faith in spite of all of the evidence to the contrary. Oddly enough it seems in these moments when people are the least kind that is when faith is the strongest and most necessary.

The conundrum comes when it is those people of faith that are the most cruel. I harken back to a religious counseling class I took when I was getting my masters degree. The whole idea of the course was to be able to speak a common language no matter who your client was and what religious background they came from. A large part of talking through issues like abortion is speaking a common language.

I’ve heard a number of defenses of the pro-choice point of view and one main defense of the pro-birth position. Until you can interpret and mimic that language it will be next to impossible to convince anyone of a position. Even then you are fighting an uphill battle. It is much like the conflict between the Palestinians and Israelites. There is only one that can control their holy land and it is both of their holy lands.

In order for a moral law to exist, it has to exist universally. The preservation of life is a moral law and yet is not universally followed in all circumstances. Freedom of choice is a universal law in the social structure of our society. Yet it is not followed in all circumstances. Here you get the ultimate collision of moral laws. Which one wins out in the end?

Is life universal when someone goes to bed without a warm meal? Is life universal when they have to lay their head down on the cold concrete of the street? Is life universal when they have committed the most egregious acts our mind can imagine? Is life universal when cancer ravages their body and they have no insurance? Whatever the source of our morality, that morality demands some consistency.

Similarly, is choice universal when someone makes a choice we disapprove of? Is choice universal when one or more of those choices could become dangerous to those around us? Can the pursuit of one’s happiness infringe on the rights of someone else? In the spaces between our intellect, our most animal urges, and conscience, we find the logical limitations of life and choice. It is in these places where our collective cultural language and traditions seemingly take over. It is in these places where agreement and understanding are the most necessary. It is in these places where our sacred honor has left us.

The Jesus we learn about in the bible and on Sundays fought for the little guy. He healed the sick. He made it so that the blind could see and the deaf could hear. He hung out with the dregs of human society and invested his efforts in helping them.

Then, we get to abortion. That’s where we have a bit of a separation. The church preaches that life is sacred whether it is at the beginning or the bitter end. It preaches that all life should be valued whether they be saint or sinner. Obviously, ending a pregnancy doesn’t fall into that paradigm.

Yet, there has always been a tension between the faith teachings of any church and the way a secular society has to be run. It has always been a challenge to keep God in our lives and yet not to intrude on the beliefs of others. A moral law cannot be based on religion alone. It must be backed by common sense, basic human decency, and a universal agreement of its existence.

This is a serious moment in our nation’s history. It demands seriousness on all sides. The Declaration of Independence said we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These are God-given rights it said. We were endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. Life is the first and the most basic human right.

However, to call oneself pro-life implies that those that are opposed to a specific viewpoint are anti-life. The reality is that we are talking about one narrow definition of life and one point in the life continuum. The truth is that there are any number of issues and times in our lives when the question of life is paramount. What does it truly mean to be alive? Are there basic human necessities everyone is entitled to? If so, what are they?

If we are entitled to life then it is absolute at every juncture. It is absolute when I commit a crime. It is absolute when we have wars of choice. It is also absolute when I lack the basic necessities of life. It is absolute when I am hungry. It is absolute when I don’t have a roof over my head. It is absolute when I need health care and don’t have insurance. Any conversation about life has to include a discussion about the quality of life. We must agree on a minimal quality of life if we are to call ourselves pro-life.

When one calls for the birth of a child and then offers nothing in support of that child once it is born then they cease to be pro-life. They are pro-birth. There is nothing inherently wrong with that as a viewpoint. You just don’t get to claim a higher moral ground or have sole appeal to a higher moral authority.

If we are to be strict constructionists then we would have to strike down the equal protections clause in the 14th amendment except for those groups specifically named in the constitution. That would include mixed race couples, LGTBQ+ individuals, in addition to those rights of privacy not explicitly stated in the constitution.

As appetizing as that may sound to some, it puts a qualifier on life. Your life is only fully actualized if it fits into this tiny box we defined in 1789 and after the civil war and reconstruction. Otherwise, you are invisible and you do not get to love who you want or be who you want to be.

Most people are well-meaning folks. They really don’t want to hurt anyone and think making such limitations helps those folks. I’m just trying to imagine Jesus of Nazareth saying the same things. I really can’t. In order to keep the faith I do have I refuse to.