Archives for the month of: May, 2024

The highly restrictive ban on abortion passed in 1864 was repealed by the Arizona Senate today, as two Republicans broke with their party to join all Democratic Senators.

Arizona lawmakers secured enough votes on Wednesday to repeal an abortion ban that first became law when Abraham Lincoln was president and a half-century before women won the right to vote.

A bill to repeal the law appeared to be on track to narrowly pass in the Republican-controlled State Senate with the support of every Democratic senator and two Republicans who were breaking with anti-abortion conservatives in their own party. If it passes as expected, it would go to Gov. Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, who is expected to sign it.

The vote taking place Wednesday afternoon was the culmination of a fevered effort to repeal the law that has made abortion a central focus of Arizona’s politics.

The New York Times reported:

Two Republican state senators, T.J. Shope and Shawnna Bolick, joined with Democrats on Wednesday to force that repeal bill to a vote over furious attempts by far-right Republicans to block it.

The 1864 law had gathered dust on the books for decades. But it exploded into an election-year flashpoint three weeks ago when a 4-2 decision by the State Supreme Court, whose justices are all Republican-appointed, said the ban could now be enforced because of the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Before casting her pivotal vote, Ms. Bolick stood up and began a long, deeply personal speech describing her own three challenging pregnancies, including one that ended with an abortion procedure in her first trimester because the fetus was not viable.

“Would Arizona’s pre-Roe law have allowed me to have this medical procedure even though my life wasn’t in danger?” she asked.

Carol Burris reports on an important decision in Vermont:

By a 19-9 vote, the Vermont Senate refused to approve Zoie Saunders, a former strategist for the for-profit Charter Schools USA, as the new Superintendent of Instruction in Vermont.

Saunders, a Florida resident, had worked briefly for a Florida public school district (3 months) even as she was applying for the Vermont position. She was Republican Governor Scott’s choice.According to a source in the state, “Senators in opposition spoke eloquently about her complete lack of vision (her best vision communication to a Senator in individual conversation was – schools in Middlebury should partner with Middlebury College) and her lack of relevant public education experience.”

The Governor is given great deference regarding his appointees. However, there was a groundswell of opposition to her appointment among Vermont citizens who feared she would bring charters to the state and expand the private school town tuition program. There was also great concern for her lack of experience in public schools. NPE Action stood in opposition to her appointment. 


You can read more about the controversy here: 

https://www.sevendaysvt.com/news/zoie-saunders-gov-scotts-pick-for-education-secretary-faces-questions-about-her-qualifications-40628713 “The Senate of Vermont took a courageous stand that will surely raise the ire of the Governor who last night tried to delay their vote. Hopefully, Governor Scott will come back with a candidate worthy to serve Vermont’s families.

Unfortunately, Governor Scott did not come back with a better candidate. He appointed Ms. Saunders as “interim commissioner.”

The Vermont Senate is comprised of 22 Democrats and seven Republicans.

Florida’s six-week ban on abortion went into effect today.

A reader who calls him/herself Quickwrit posted the following excellent thoughts about anti-abortion laws:

THE NINTH AMENDMENT that gives Clarence Thomas the constitutional right to live in an interracial marriage also gives women the constitutional right to abortion: The 9th Amendment says that rights, like the right to interracial marriage and the right to abortion, do not have to be stated in the Constitution in order to be constitutional rights because The Ninth Amendment says: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

The current Supreme Court ruling on abortion not only violates the 9th Amendment, it violates the religious rights of many citizens. The ruling is supportive of the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church to which the six majority Justices belong.

The Bible gives commandments on a very, very long list of more than 600 laws on everything from divorce to gluttony or stealing — yet the Bible says nothing about abortion. Why is that? If abortion was even as important as gluttony and stealing, it would have been mentioned in the Bible.

Out of more than 600 laws of Moses, which includes the 10 Commandments, NONE — not one — comments on abortion. In fact, the Mosaic law in Exodus 21:22-25 clearly shows that causing the abortion of a fetus is NOT MURDER. Exodus 21:22-25 says that if a woman has a miscarriage as the result of an altercation with a man, the man who caused miscarriage should only pay a fine that is to be determined by the woman’s husband, but if the woman dies, the man is to be executed: “If a man strives with a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet there is no harm to the woman, he shall be punished according to what the woman’s husband determines and he shall pay as the judges determine.” So, the miscarriage is treated like the destruction of property, not murder.

There are Christian denominations that allow abortion in most instances; these Christian denominations include the United Church of Christ and the Presbyterian Church USA. The United Methodist Church and Episcopal churches allow abortion in cases of medical necessity, and the United Universalist Association also allows abortion.

Most of the opposition to abortion comes from fundamentalist and evangelical Christians who believe that a full-fledged human being is created at the instant of conception. But that is a religious BELIEF and religious beliefs cannot be recognized by the government under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of our Constitution. Moreover, the belief that a fetus is a human person, complete with a soul, is a Christian interpretation of the Jewish Bible — the Old Testament. But, Jewish scholars whose ancestors wrote the Old Testament and who know best what the words mean say that is a wrong interpretation of their writings.

Christians largely base their view that a fetus is a complete human being and that abortion is murder on the Jewish Bible’s Psalm 139: “You knit me together in my mother’s womb…You watched me as I was being formed in utter seclusion as I was woven together in the dark of the womb. You saw me before I was born.”

But who better to translate the accurate meaning of Psalm 139 than the Jews who wrote it? And Jewish scholars point out that Psalm 139 merely describes the development of a fetus and does not mean that the fetus has a soul and is a person. In fact, the Jewish Talmud explains that for the first 40 days of a woman’s pregnancy, the fetus is considered “mere fluid” and is just part of the mother’s body, like an appendix or liver. Only after the fetus’s head emerges from the womb at birth is the baby considered a “nefesh” – Hebrew for “soul” or “spirit” – a human person.

The idea that full-fledged human life begins at conception is a sectarian religious belief that isn’t held by the majority of religions, including a number of mainstream Christian religions.

Therefore, any local, state, or federal law that holds that full-fledged human life begins at conception is unconstitutional because such laws are made in recognition of an establishment of religion and violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

THE COURT BENDS THE FACTS: The University of London scientist whose research is cited by the Supreme Court in its ruling to take away abortion rights says that his research has been misinterpreted by Justice Alito and the Supreme Court’s activist conservative majority. Neuroscientist Dr. Giandomenico Iannetti says that the Court is ABSOLUTELY WRONG to say that his research shows that a fetus can feel pain when it is less than 24 weeks of development. “My results by no means imply that,” Dr. Iannetti declares. “I feel they were used in a clever way to make a point.” And Dr. John Wood, molecular neurobiologist at the University, points out that all serious scientists agree that a fetus can NOT feel pain until at least 24 weeks “and perhaps not even then.” Dr. Vania Apkarian, head of the Center for Transitional Pain Research at Chicago’s Feinberg School of Medicine, says that the medical evidence on a fetus not feeling pain before 24 weeks or longer has not changed in 50 years and remains “irrefutable”.

LIFE OF WOE: In its 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling upholding abortion rights, the Supreme Court set “viability” — the point at which a fetus can survive outside of the womb — as the dividing line after which some restrictions can be imposed on abortion rights. The pending ruling by current activist conservative majority on the Court will do away with the concept of viability, yet even with all of today’s medical miracles to keep a prematurely born or aborted fetus alive, of all the tens of thousands of cases, 90% OF FETUSES BORN AT 22 WEEKS DO NOT SURVIVE, and data shows that the majority of those that manage to be kept alive live the rest of their lives with a combination of BIRTH DEFECTS that include mental impairment, cerebral palsy, breathing problems, blindness, deafness, and other disorders that often require frequent hospitalizations during their lifetimes.

As I write this, I’m watching the New York Police Department remove protestors from Hamilton Hall at Columbia University. On CNN, a retired federal judge, who was a student at the university in 1968, compares then and now. She says that the students in Hamilton Hall will likely be charged with trespassing, vandalism, maybe disorderly conduct or resisting arrest. As defined by the ACLU, the university has the right to define time, place, and manner of demonstrations and protests. Breaking into a building, smashing windows, and occupying it are not expressions of free speech.

Columbia University has about 36,000 students; possibly 500 were protesting, not all of them students.

Which brings me to the question that is the subject of this post:

“Are the campus protests advancing peace in the Middle East?”

I believe the answer is a resounding “NO!”

I believe that students should be protesting against both Israel and Hamas, for different reasons. Neither wants peace.

Students are right to condemn the Netanyahu government for its relentless bombardment of Gaza, causing tens of thousands of deaths, destroying buildings, schools, universities, homes, hospitals, mosques, and other cultural sites. Students are right to demand an end to the killing and bloodshed.

But students should recognize that Hamas is a terrorist organization that is not worthy of their acclaim. Hamas is dedicated to the eradication of the state of Israel. Both its 1998 charter and its 2017 charter make clear that its purpose is to eliminate the state of Israel:

“20. Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea…” (2017)

“27. A real state of Palestine is a state that has been liberated. There is no alternative to a fully sovereign Palestinian State on the entire national Palestinian soil, with Jerusalem as its capital.” (2017)

Students should demand the return of all the Israeli hostages, alive and dead.

Students should call for an early election in Israel to allow Israelis to hold the Netanyahu regime accountable, first, for its failure to protect the Gaza border from invasion; second, for its brutal tactics in Gaza; and third, for Netanyahu’s failed policy of placating Hamas, passing along subsidies to it, expecting that it would abandon terrorism. At the same time, he has tried to cripple the PLO, which is the government of the West Bank Palestinians and was a party to the Oslo accords, in which the PLO and Israel agreed to begin planning for two states. Netanyahu courted Hamas and undermined the PLO to prevent any movement towards a two-state solution.

This disastrous policy came to fruition on October 7. A senior Hamas official pledged to repeat the atrocities of October 7 “again and again” until Israel is destroyed.

Both sides must eventually accept a plan to cease hostilities. Both sides must eventually agree to an exchange of Israeli hostages for Hamas prisoners. Both sides must eventually agree to a two-state solution. Other states—Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the U.S., France, Germany, and the UK— must guarantee the borders and security of the two states, as well as the reconstruction of Gaza.

The only way this war will end is if both parties agree to sit down and negotiate a settlement. Are the pro-Hamas, pro-Palestinian demonstrations making such negotiations more or less likely? My own view is that the protestors’ one-sided embrace of Hamas makes Hamas less willing to negotiate because with every passing day, they win the public opinion war.

Politically, the demonstrations hurt President Biden. Sympathizers of the protesters may choose not to vote. Michigan, with its significant Muslim population, may go to Trump. The irony is that Trump, the beneficiary of the protests, sought a total ban on Muslim immigration after his inauguration, and he is very close to Netanyahu and his far-rightwing coalition.

If I could send one message to all the demonstrators, it would be this: Seek peace, not a Hamas victory. Put pressure on both sides to end this terrible war and to pursue a just and stable peace.