Author Archives: Editor

Save Baby Joseph, Release His Medical Records

Posted on March 9, 2011 | Leave a comment

The now-famous case of Baby Joseph in Canada is becoming critical. He could die in the next couple of weeks if his breathing tube is removed as the hospital and the government intend.

Baby Joseph is only 13 months old and often has difficulty breathing on his own. He needs a procedure called a tracheostomy in order to go home and live under his parents’ care. However, the Canadian health care system is refusing to let the family take care of their son — even though hospitals in the United States have privately said that they would take Joseph in and give him the tracheostomy he needs to survive. U.S. doctors and hospitals who are now familiar with the case are appalled that Baby Joseph hadn’t received the tracheostomy 3 or 4 months ago rather than make the baby suffer all this time.

Baby Joseph’s parents are pleading with the world for a hospital with the courage to step forward and accept their son for evaluation and treatment. Priests For Life has even agreed to supply medical air transport to and from the facilities. We will support the cost of the hospitalization and after-care including nursing. Home ventilators have also been donated to maintain Baby Joseph if needed.

There are U.S. physicians in Michigan willing to oversee Baby Joseph’s outpatient care and assist in weaning him off the home ventilator should it be necessary.

We have yet to find one facility that said it would not perform the tracheostomy on Baby Joseph.

The real problem is that health care providers in the U.S. need Baby Joseph’s medical records — but the Canadian authorities are refusing to release them.

Therefore, I need your help to contact the Canadian authorities so that a proper and humane solution to this problem can be found. We have recently discovered that Canadian law requires the hospital to release these records to Baby Joseph’s parents upon request. And to date, they have refused.

This is what is preventing hospitals in the United States from being able to accept Baby Joseph. We need those medical records! And we need them now!

To learn more about baby Joseph or contract the Canadian authorities, go Alveda King’s Blog and/or Priest for Life.

[A note about the Canadian Health Care System: It is an advanced socialist system comparable to the one proposed by Congress and Obama.]

Source:Father Frank’s Alerts email, Priests For Life email, March 6, 2011.

Leave a comment

Posted in health care, news

Tagged , , , , ,

Answer to Family Breakdown is “Social Fatherhood,” UN Says

Posted on March 8, 2011 | Leave a comment

By Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D.

The cohesion of the American family is about the worst in the world, according to a new UN report. Rather than recommending policies reinforcing traditional family roles, the study recommends social policies reflecting the new reality.

Just 70 percent of American children grow up with both parents, worse than the developed world average of 84 percent. Only Estonian children fare worse. And American marriages fail more than anywhere else except Latvia, the report says.

At the same time, many men around the world desire more children than they have. American men generally desired 2.3 children in 1991 (the last year data was shown), while the U.S. fertility rate was only 1.85. In an example from the developing world, the report finds that men in Benin wanted on average 6 children in 2000, while data from the UN Population Division show that the fertility rate was only 5.79.

This evidence seems to contradict the idea of an “unmet need for family planning” upon which UN agencies base the need for voluntary family planning programs. The United States is the world’s largest donor to international family planning and population programs.

The report also finds that Chile and Ireland have the world’s lowest rates of divorce. These countries also have the world’s lowest maternal mortality rates, according to studies by several UN agencies. The new report does not explicitly correlate its data on intact marriages with better maternal health.

In light of its data on the rising breakdown of marriage and family life, the report seeks policy changes that recognize and support the “evolving role of men in families” including changes to the labor market, family law, health and social services, education and the media.

The report promotes the concept of “social fatherhood,” which “encompasses the care and support of males for children who are not necessarily their biological offspring.”

And it asserts that “the term ‘family’ encompasses a variety of traditional and non-traditional groupings, including heterosexual and homosexual partnerships, biological and social parents and children, polygamous and polygynous relationships, close friends, and other relatives.”

Social conservatives have criticized such definitions as evidence of a glaring disconnect between data that indicate the need to strengthen fatherhood and the family on one hand, and attempts to change the definition of family by activists and some governments, mostly from Europe, on the other.

“Men in Families and Family Policies in a Changing World,” is part of a series of studies resulting from a General Assembly resolution on the Follow-up to the tenth anniversary of the International Year of the Family which called for supplementing government research to change social policies.

Initial focus of the series was on achieving “equal sharing of domestic responsibilities,” and subsequent reports focused on engaging men in family planning and reproductive health, and determining the parental roles in education of children. The report was funded by the United Nations Trust Fund on Family Activities.

This article was first published in FridayFax by the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) on March 23, 2011.

Leave a comment

Posted in family, news, politics, research

Tagged , ,

U.K. High Court Suggests Christian Beliefs Harmful to Children, Is the U.S. Next?

Posted on March 8, 2011 | Leave a comment

In a landmark judgment, which will have a serious impact on the future of fostering and adoption in the UK, the High Court has suggested that Christians with traditional views on sexual ethics are unsuitable as foster carers, and that homosexual ‘rights’ trump freedom of conscience in the UK.The Judges stated that Christian beliefs on sexual ethics may be ‘inimical’ to children, and they implicitly upheld an Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) submission that children risk being ‘infected’ by Christian moral beliefs.

Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson’s judgment, handed down this afternoon (28 Feb), flies in the face of a statement, made less than a week ago, by Government Minister Michael Gove, who pledged that the Coalition would change the “culture of political correctness” related to adoption and fostering, and claimed that the Government wanted to increase the number of people who could offer a loving home to a child.

Today’s ruling relates to the dispute between married couple Eunice and Owen Johns and Derby City Council. The Johns applied to the Council in 2007 to foster a child but the Council blocked their application because they objected that the Johns were not willing to promote the practise of homosexuality to a young child. In November 2010 both parties jointly asked the Court to rule on whether the Johns were able to foster children, or whether they could be excluded from doing so under equality law because of their Christian beliefs.

Today (28th February) that judgment has been released. The judges declined to make the statement that the Johns, wanting to re-establish their fostering application, had sought. Instead, the judgment strongly affirms homosexual rights over freedom of conscience and leaves the Johns currently unable to foster a child as desired, despite their proven track record as foster parents. There now appears to be nothing to stop the increasing bar on Christians who wish to adopt or foster children but who are not willing to compromise their beliefs by promoting the practise of homosexuality to small children.

The nature of the judgment means that Christians who hold orthodox Christian views on the family, marriage and sexuality will continue to face difficulties in the fostering and adoption process and the Courts will not intervene to stop this from happening. In fact, the summary contained in the judgment sends out the clear message that orthodox Christian ethical beliefs are potentially harmful to children and that Christian parents with mainstream Christian views are not suitable to be considered as potential foster parents.

In their judgment, the judges stated:

* That if children are placed with parents who have traditional Christian views like the Johns “there may well be a conflict with the local authority’s duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of looked-after children”,[1]

* That there is a tension between the equality provisions concerning religious discrimination and those concerning sexual orientation. Yet, as regards fostering, “the equality provisions concerning sexual orientation should take precedence”, [2]

* That a local authority can require positive attitudes to be demonstrated towards homosexuality, [3]

* That there is no religious discrimination against the Johns because they were being excluded from fostering due to their moral views on sexual ethics and not their Christian beliefs (This is incredible and very disingenuous as the Johns moral views cannot be separated from their religious beliefs), [4]and

* That “Article 9 [of the European Human Rights Act] only provides a ‘qualified’ right to manifest religious belief and … this will be particularly so where a person in whose care a child is placed wishes to manifest a belief that is inimical to the interests of children”. [5] [5]

Equality and Human Rights Commission

The tax payer funded EHRC played an important role in this judgment. They intervened in the Johns case, and they suggested to the Court thata child should not, in their own words,be ‘infected’ with Christian moral beliefs. Suggesting that Christian moral beliefs on sexual ethics could ‘infect’ children is an extraordinary position for a statutory body to take. It is also deeply insulting both to the Johns, who have a proven track record of successfully raising children, and to Christians in general.

THE HIGH COURT IMPLICITLY UPHELD THIS SUBMISSION BY THE EHRC.

Johns Reaction

The judgment was greeted with disbelief and sadness today by Eunice and Owen Johns. In a statement, the couple said:

“We wanted to offer a loving home to a child in need. But because of this ruling we are unsure how we can continue the application process. We have been excluded because we have moral opinions based on our faith, and a vulnerable child has probably now missed the chance of finding a safe and caring home. We do not believe that our ordinary Christian moral views are infectious, contrary to what the Equality and Human Rights Commission believes. Being a Christian is not a crime and should not stop us from raising children. Today, it looks as though a child has missed out on a home.”

Christian Legal Centre Reaction

Andrea Minichiello Williams, CEO of Christian Concern and the Christian Legal Centre said:

“The Johns are a mild mannered, ordinary Christian couple, yet they may never be able to foster children again. They were willing to love a child regardless of sexual orientation, but not willing to tell a young child that practising homosexuality was a positive thing. Now, a child has likely missed out on finding a home, at a time when there is a desperate shortage of willing parents.

“Eunice and Owen Johns have been humiliated and sidelined and told by a Government body (the EHRC) that their mainstream Christian views might “infect” children. They have also effectively been told by British Judges that their views may harm children.

“The Judges have claimed that there was no discrimination against the Johns as Christians because they were being excluded from fostering due to their sexual ethics and not their Christian beliefs. This claim that their moral beliefs on sex have nothing to do with their Christian faith is a clear falsehood made in order to justify their ruling. How can the Judges get away with this?

“What has happened to the Johns is part of a wider trend seen in recent years. The law has been increasingly interpreted by Judges in a way which favours homosexual rights over freedom of conscience. Significant areas of public life are now becoming out of bounds to Christians who do not want to compromise their beliefs. If Christian morals are harmful to children and unacceptable to the State, then how many years do we have before natural children start being taken away from Christians?

“At the Christian Legal Centre our clients have included, amongst many others, a nurse suspended for offering prayer; a Council worker suspended for talking about God to a client, a teacher suspended for offering prayer; a nurse forced off frontline nursing because she wouldn’t take off her cross. We have dealt with Civil Registrars who have been demoted because they did not want to officiate at civil partnerships, and a Christian counsellor who lost his job for not wanting to give sex therapy to homosexuals. In the last few years, several Catholic adoption agencies have been forced to close because they refused to place children with homosexual couples.

“There is a great imbalance in the law at the moment, resulting in ordinary people suffering. The situation must be addressed by Parliament as the Judiciary have failed to stand for civil liberties but have capitulated to the agenda of the homosexual rights lobby. We cannot have a society where you are excluded just because you don’t agree with the sexual ethics of the homosexual lobby. Britain is now leading Europe in intolerance against religious belief.”

Xenia Citizen Journal Reaction

The differences between the problem faced by John’s in the U.K. and American parents are only the extent to which secular values drives the assault perpetrated by law against the rights of parents and families for the benefit of special interest groups (gays in John’s case) and those groups wrong behaviors. Ultimately, at issue is the morality of individuals (Johns) and the stigmatism of groups (Christians) over against the immorality of individuals (gays) and wrong behavior of their larger affiliations.

The absence of marriage, parents, children, family from both federal and most original state constitutions demonstrates that the rights of husband (male) and wife (female), parents and children are more fundamental than those political and legal documents and the institutions created by them. Because the family institution is naturally a sexually-oriented one, the gay political agenda is at root hostile to both nature and the natural family.

The great imbalance experienced by many parents and children in America is being redressed through litigation like Alford v Greene and the efforts by the Parental Rights organization to bring a constitutional amendment to a national vote. Pro-family organization like Mass Resistance, Washington State Extended Family, American Family Association, and many more are also fighting for the preservation of the family and their once unalienable rights.

Endnotes:

[1] [6]Para 93 of Judgment

[2] [7]Para 93 of Judgment

[3] [8]Para 101 of Judgment

[4] [9]Para 99 of Judgment

[5] [9]Para 102 of Judgment

Leave a comment

Posted in family, news, politics, religion

Tagged

Alford v. Greene: A Case with Far-Reaching Implications for Parents’ Rights

Posted on March 7, 2011 | Leave a comment

By John W. Whitehead

“The child is not the mere creature of the state.” — United States Supreme Court, Pierce v. Society of Sisters

On March 1, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Alford v. Greene, the first major case involving Child Protective Services to go before the United States Supreme Court in 21 years and one of the most important parents’ rights cases ever to reach the Court.

If it goes the right way—i.e., to bolster parents’ rights—it will mean that state agents will have to obtain a court order in order to question a child at school. If it goes the wrong way, which the Obama administration is advocating for, along with 40 state attorneys general, law enforcement agencies, social workers, prosecutors and defense attorneys, it will be a serious blow to parental rights as well as the rights of children in the public schools. And then there’s the possibility that the Court will either vacate the lower court opinion, leaving the police and other government agents free to question students at will, or sidestep the issue altogether and simply choose not to rule on it, declaring it moot because the young girl involved is no longer a child.

Yet this is not an issue that is going to go away. Indeed, Alford v. Greene could have far-reaching implications for the rights of parents and students across the nation. And while the particulars of the case are egregious, they pale in comparison to the government’s effrontery in insisting that parents essentially forfeit their rights when they send their children to a public school.

In February 2003, an armed, uniformed county sheriff and an Oregon Department of Human Services caseworker directed school officials at an elementary school to summon a 9-year-old girl (referred to in the court documents as S.G.) for questioning. Despite the absence of a court order or the involvement of a judge, school officials called S.G. out of her class, took her to an empty conference room, and left her alone with the sheriff, James Alford, and the social services investigator, Bob Camreta. Then, without notifying S.G.’s mother and in the absence of anyone who might otherwise have looked out for the little girl’s best interests, these two men proceeded to question her for two hours.

During the course of the interrogation, Camreta, the social worker, peppered S.G. with questions about whether her father had ever abused her or her little sister. According to S.G.’s attorneys, when Camreta asked the 9-year-old if her father touched her “all over [her] body,” she said “yes,” referring to affectionate hugs, kisses and piggy-back rides. Camreta then asked “over and over again” if “some of those were bad touches.” Over and over again, the little girl said “no.”

Obviously intimidated by the two men, one of whom was wearing a gun clearly visible to the little girl, S.G. was too frightened even to ask for a glass of water or tell the men that she felt ill. At no time was she told that she could refuse to answer their questions or that she was free to leave the room on her own volition. (Incredibly, the Obama administration in their Supreme Court brief chalks up such interrogations to being “at most a minor intrusion on the liberty of a child whose freedom of movement is already considerably restricted by virtue of her presence at school.”)

As the interrogation dragged on, S.G. continued to deny that her father had ever abused her. Yet once the school buses started arriving to take her classmates home, S.G. found herself overcome with fear that she would be left behind. At that point, S.G. says she decided to lie and say yes to whatever the men asked, “just to get out of the room.” Upon returning home, S.G. was further traumatized to find the same two men in her house, questioning her mother. These encounters left the little girl feeling so nauseous that she later vomited five times and was unable to eat dinner.

Despite the fact that Alford had a tape recorder with him, no recording or documentation of the questions asked of S.G. during the two-hour interrogation exist. Nevertheless, based on the accounting of the two men and despite S.G.’s repeated denials of any abuse by her father, S.G. and her sister were subsequently removed from her parents’ care and placed in foster care for three weeks. They were eventually returned to their mother’s care after physical examinations failed to uncover any evidence of sexual abuse. Charges levied against their father were subsequently dropped.

In 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of S.G., declaring that the government had violated her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. However, in appealing the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, the government is arguing that S.G.’s mere presence at school was sufficient to justify law enforcement officers seizing and interrogating her without her mother’s knowledge or consent—a position which, if upheld, will further undermine the rights of parents of public school students.

If Alford v. Greene were only about one family’s heart-wrenching ordeal, it would be bad enough. But it’s indicative of a more draconian mindset at work in the government, one that sees public school students as wards of the state, to do with as they will, in defiance of the children’s constitutional rights and those of their parents. This is far from the first time that government officials have usurped the rights of parents and arrogated authority and power over young people in the public schools. Hence, in recent years, students have found themselves subjected to invasive questioning and mass searches of their persons and property—often without their parents’ knowledge or consent.

Unfortunately, this effort to usurp parental authority and turn schools into virtual police states flies in the face of the Supreme Court’s 1968 admonition in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District that “neither teachers nor students shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.” As attorney Tony LaCroix points out in “Student Drug Testing: The Blinding Appeal of In Loco Parentis and the Importance of State Protection of Student Privacy”: “The states, through a combination of compulsory attendance laws and in loco parentis-inspired policies, have ‘bootstrapped’ themselves into possessing a right to infringe on the personal liberties of students in a manner similar to a parent.” Moreover, as professor Susan Stuart recognizes in her article “In Loco Parentis in the Public Schools: Abused, Confused and in Need of Change”: “The consequences for students have been enormous, from increasing restrictions on student speech to loosening restrictions on how schools can conduct student searches. Schools have been given license to reach the outer boundaries of control by courts’ countenancing institutional and official behavior that is farther and farther from the reaches of professional conduct.”

Yet the harm caused by attitudes and policies that treat public school students as state vassals is not merely a short-term deprivation of individual rights. It also is a long-term inculcation of attitudes among our youth that civil liberties are luxuries that may be discarded at the whim and caprice of government officials if they deem doing so is for the so-called “greater good.” Rather than molding our young people into compliant citizens, the schools should be educating them for citizenship and in the scrupulous protection of our constitutional rights. Otherwise, as the Supreme Court has held, we “will strangle the free mind at its source and teach our youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes.”

The public’s desire to stop and prevent child abuse cannot be gainsaid, but the government interest in investigating criminal activity has never been deemed sufficient to override fundamental rights such as the right to bodily freedom. As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis opined in one of his dissenting opinions in 1928, “Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. . . . The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”

To see John Whitehead’s video on the Alford v Greene case, go here.

————————

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about the Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

Leave a comment

Posted in news, politics, schools

Tagged , , ,

Providence

Posted on March 5, 2011 | Leave a comment

By Paul Eidelberg

Jews and Christian believe, and without denying free will, that all that occurs in this world — both good and bad — is somehow providential and ultimately intended for our benefit. This belief poses an intellectual challenge, especially in view of all the bloodshed and suffering now going on in the world. We are compelled to think about or speculate on how that which we deem bad serves the good. Well, only the good Lord, by virtue of His Infinite Intelligence, can really answer this agonizing question. This kind of question goes back at least to Job, and the best we mortals can do is offer partial and no doubt inadequate answers.

So, with this qualification in mind, I will mention only one case that has deeply concerned me: “How does the election of Barack Obama, which I (and many others) deem bad serve the good?”

I will consider only one good consquence of his election. The fact that Mr. Obama declared early on that America is not a Christian nation, and the fact that he demoted Judaism in his Inaugural Address, have triggered a flood of new books on America’s Christian and Judaic foundations. I have even incorprated much of this material in my latest book on American Exceptionalism. I look at these new books as a providential sign for both America and Israel. Hence, even though we are concerned (and should be) about the shortcomings of those at the helm in America and Israel, this prompts us to think about what these two greatest of nations stand for, what makes them Exceptional, and what must be done to preserve their singular heritage.

Leave a comment

Posted in politics, religion

Tagged , , ,

Fulfilling Our Promises to the American People

Posted on March 4, 2011 | Leave a comment

By Representative Steve Austria

Like many of you, I am very concerned about our nation’s economic future and the excessive government spending that has occurred over the past few years. That is why the new majority in Congress, led by House Speaker and fellow Ohioan John Boehner, is responding to the American people’s request to change the way they do things in Washington – and that starts with reducing the $14 trillion debt and cutting the wasteful Washington spending.

Last week, Congress responded to the American people’s request to change the way we do things in Washington, D.C. We did the difficult work of cutting government spending in a full, open and transparent process in which the House Speaker allowed more than 600 amendments to be offered and countless hours of debate to take place on the House floor. Although there were many difficult decisions, we were united in our purpose, and the end result is significant: more than *$100 billion has been cut from the budget for Fiscal Year 2011. These cuts are essential to helping put our country back on a fiscally-sustainable path that will create jobs in the private sector and strengthen the economy for our children and grandchildren.

The Senate must now work with the House to pass a Continuing Resolution (CR) which must include cuts to Washington spending to keep the federal government operating.

Pleased be assured that I remain committed to principles of smaller, more accountable government; economic freedom; lower taxes; fiscal responsibility; protecting life, American values, and the Constitution; and providing for strong national security. The governing agenda of the majority, as outlined in the Pledge to America, offers a way forward that is consistent with all of these principles.

The foundation of our plan is to get the economy back on track by creating jobs. As a former small business owner, I understand that the way to help create new jobs is by helping the small businesses who are the job creators. We must promote policies that will protect individual choice and help our small businesses. Now is the time for Congress to address the issues facing our nation and I believe we took the first steps last week. The road ahead may be hard, but we must reverse the spending binge and work to reduce the crippling national debt.

*(source: House Republican Conference)

Leave a comment

Posted in economy, news, Ohio, politics

Whistleblower Files Suit to Remove Greene County Prosecutor

Posted on March 3, 2011 | Leave a comment

Earlier this month, John Mitchel, former Republican candidate for Ohio’s Seventh Congressional District, filed suit (Case No: 2011-CV-0114) in Greene County Common Pleas Court to remove County Prosecutor Stephen K. Haller. Mitchel alleges Haller practiced “gross misconduct” in the manner in which he defended himself and other Greene County Republican Executive Committee members in a public records request action filed in May 2009. Mitchel also claims that Haller conspired with an assistant prosecutor to withhold public records related to the 2003 BRAC Initiative Agreement contract between Greene County and the Dayton Development Coalition.

In response to filing the lawsuit, Mitchel commented, “It is well past the time that we demand our elected officials are held accountable to the same laws that apply to ‘we the people.’ As long as we allow law enforcement officials and the courts to tolerate cronyism and pay-to-play politics, we get exactly what we deserve…..self-interested politicians who hold themselves above the law. As this scandal and others unwind, it’s my sense that the cover-up to conceal fraud, waste, abuse and corruption in Greene County extends to the top of the GOP chain of command here in Ohio. However, in the meantime Mr. Haller has rights, and as it should be, he will have the opportunity to defend himself before a jury of his peers if he chooses to do so.”

Leave a comment

Posted in Greene County, news, politics

Capital Punishment and Abortion

Posted on March 2, 2011 | Leave a comment

By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

In the Mishna we read: “Therefore but a single man was created in the world, to teach that if any man has caused a single soul to perish, Scripture imputes it to him as though he had caused a whole world to perish; and if any man saves alive a single soul, Scripture imputes it to him as though he had saved alive a whole world.”

To avoid misunderstanding, let me state at the outset that, except in extreme cases, I do not advocate capital punishment in Israel at this time. Nor do I regard as correct the Catholic view of abortion. But there is something very curious about the liberal position on these two issues, especially by liberals who advocate the American practice of “abortion on demand.”

Among the arguments against capital punishment is the contention that society has no right to take the life even of the most savage murderer. Yet many if not most opponents of capital punishment assert the right of a woman, six and even more months pregnant, to snuff out, with the aid of a physician, the life of her unborn child. Murderers would thus be spared while the innocent would be murdered.

We have become “humane” and “progressive.” For now we feel compassion, perhaps some responsibility, for those who have taken life, not for those who have just begun to live. Without a twinge of moral doubt or remorse we execute the unborn and condemn as cruel and barbaric the execution of murderers.

That capital punishment should be called cruel and barbaric by its opponents is a nice commentary on our forefathers. Meanwhile, their humane descendants each year execute countless unborn babies whose only crime was to be unwanted.

An individual accused of murder receives due process of law. He is provided legal counsel to defend him, witnesses to testify on his behalf. In the United States a jury of twelve persons is empanelled to hear and weigh evidence bearing on his guilt or innocence. Let only one member of that jury entertain a reasonable doubt as to his guilt and the accused is acquitted, his life spared.

Compare the plight of the unwanted, unborn child. He is utterly abandoned. Society affords him no defense, no legal counsel or friendly witness. Yet the life of the unborn child is on trial. He is on trial for being an inconvenient “fetus.” But we too are on trial, on trial in the courtroom of indifference called the “humane” and “progressive” society. We are not only spectators; we are also the jury. And we have been instructed by judges. They have told us that this unborn child is not a human being — which we are all the more ready to believe having been taught to regard it as a mere “fetus.”

Had we not been thus instructed, had we only harbored a reasonable doubt on this life and death issue, we would have acquitted the child rather than become his executioners. Only a reasonable doubt, nothing more than this, and we would have affirmed the child’s as well as our own humanity.

Liberal advocates of abortion intone the idea that a person has the right to control his or her own body. Some derive this right from British common law. To stretch the common law to justify “abortion on demand” is rather ironic. For the common law prohibited the arbitrary control of another person’s body and regarded a “fetus” as a “person”! This being so, it was impermissible to execute a pregnant murderess. But this is not the only irony.

The idea of “abortion on demand” actually violates the very nature of a woman’s body and the essence of motherhood. This can best be seen by reflecting on the Hebrew word for a woman’s womb — rechem. One cognate of the word rechem is “to feel pity or pain at another’s suffering.” Another is “to feel joy at another’s happiness.” Who feels more pain than a mother when her child is ill, or more joy when her child is well and successful. But this is not all.

The mother’s body nourishes the child in her womb. She gives of her own life’s substance to the child, a giving that signifies her selflessness. The very opposite character trait underlies “abortion on demand.”

The laws of our supposedly barbaric forefathers prohibited abortion unless the mother’s life was in danger. Many of our forefathers were doctors. Today many doctors, having added abortions to their repertoire of services, have also multiplied their yearly earnings. Because of this vested interest, the medical profession has become one of the principal supporters of abortion.

As for capital punishment, consider a few aspects of Judaic law on the subject. First, neither circumstantial evidence nor the confession of the accused is admissible under the Sanhedrin. Second, the murder had to be witnessed by two eligible persons, and they had to warn the would-be murderer of the consequences of his intended crime. For to be culpable the malefactor had to be sane, and the act of murder had to be deliberate. These qualifications made conviction for capital punishment exceedingly rare.

Clearly, these laws governing capital punishment do not depreciate the value of human life. To the contrary. Precisely because human life is sacred, those laws require the execution of convicted murderers, of those whose act of murder was itself a denial that human life is sacred.

By taking the life of a human being the murderer negates his own humanity; he reduces himself to the level of the beast. And it is more as a beast, homo lupus, than as homo civilis, that the murderer, after being duly tried and convicted, is executed. Imposing upon him the extreme penalty of death does not deny his humanity so much as it affirms the humanity or dignity of his victim. Perhaps, in the last analysis, the punishment of death is a profound public affirmation of the sanctity of life.

But these thoughts are not intended as a defense of capital punishment, else far more would have to be said on the subject. Let them rather stand as an argument against capital punishment: the capital punishment tolerated under the name of “abortion on demand” or its equivalent. If capital punishment is opposed on the ground that human life is so precious that even the life of the most vicious murderer must be spared, do we not cheapen life by the wholesale destruction of countless unborn children? Is the murderer more human than the unborn child?

One last word. In Alex Haley’s celebrated book, Roots, Omoro, one of the principal characters, tries to explain life and death to young Kunta Kinte: “He said that three groups of people lived in every village. First were those you could see — walking around, eating, sleeping, and working. Second were the ancestors, whom Grandma Yaisa had now joined.” “And the third people — who are they?” asked Kunta.

“The third people,” said Omoro, “are those waiting to be born.”

Leave a comment

Posted in politics, religion

Tagged , ,

Greene County Property Taxes Higher Than State and National Median

Posted on March 1, 2011 | Leave a comment

The newest on-line tax tool is Tax Foundation’s County Property Tax Lookup. Anyone can look their county’s median property tax payout for the past 5 years as compared to both state and national median tax payments.

Median is a statistical term for the highest number in the middle of the statistical bell curve. It is not exactly a true average but the median is close to the average. In this instance, it is the middle point of property taxes paid beginning with those who pay the lowest taxes to those paying highest amount of property taxes.

I looked up the median property tax paid in Greene County Ohio. What I found was Greene County property owners pay higher taxes than other property owners throughout the nation and Ohio.

Based on a five year average (2005-2009), median real estate taxes paid by Greene County property owners was $2,326. Ohio median real estate taxes for the same period was $1,752 and, nationally, it was $1,805.

The Tax Foundation included comparisons of real estate taxes paid as a percent of median home value and as a percent of median income. Over the same five year period, the above Greene County real estate taxes equated to 1.49% of median home value and 3.22% of median income. Ohio property taxes equated to 1.3% of home value and 2.94% median income and, nationally, land owners paid 0.97% of home values and 2.81% of median income.

Leave a comment

Posted in Greene County, Ohio, taxes

How Union Busting Could Effect Xenia Community Schools

Posted on February 28, 2011 | Leave a comment

The so-called “union busting” efforts by state officials is a blessing in disguise. The fiscal conundrum faced by governors and state representatives has forced all of them to deal with public unions one way of another. In states like Wyoming, the Democrat governor convinced the union to cut pay and benefits in order to maintain a growing economy. In Indiana, the Republican governor eliminated collective bargaining that enabled government to become more efficient, provide services more effectively, and increase merit-based pay to public employees. This means both methods of controlling public finances work.

In Ohio, Republican lawmakers are seeking to implement similar fiscal policies as Indiana.

Union employees, Ted Strickland and other democrats claim an end to collective bargaining will harm the middle-class. Mary McCleary of The Buckeye Institute refutes their claim. In a recent article, she wrote:

“Contrary to the rhetoric these folks are spouting, eliminating collective bargaining for public sector employees actually does the opposite. It helps the middle class and protects our vulnerable populations. As it currently stands when there is not enough money to pay for all government employees in the system, workers get laid off. They lose their jobs. If a collective bargaining agreement weren’t in place, jobs could be saved. Everyone could take a small pay cut, and everyone would keep their jobs. Furthermore, when government workers are laid off, services are necessarily cut. Think about our schools where teachers are let go and programs are cut. The students suffer and all because the unions won’t make concessions. Contrary to what has been said, collective bargaining for government employees actually hurts the middle class.”

Last week, a manufacturer’s sales rep shared his experience with unions. He was an autoworker who made it to the highest position in the AEU. He sat at the bargaining tables with corporate executives. He made the big bucks and yet he quit. Why? Because all it was about was getting the biggest pay for himself and the union bosses. Union workers were never a part of real deal.

How does any of this apply to Xenia Schools?

School officials claim they have a budget deficit of $5 million. In order to make ends meet, they have to close two schools and lay-off around 70 teachers. What if all union employees including administrators, teachers, and support staff accepted a temporary pay and benefit cut for say three years? After all, wages, salaries and benefits make up the largest part of the budget. Because the school budget is about $60 million, a 10% cut would reduce costs by about $5 million. That would save 70 teaching positions.

Of course, it might mess up the plan to close two schools in order to get the “Tobacco Money” for building new schools, which plan is wrong for Xenia. The plan eventually to close Spring Hill is no more necessary because of a high water table any more than at Tecumseh. Besides, rebuilding Spring Hill without a basement would solve the previous flooding problem. A number of other schools do not have basements either.

Actually, Xenia needs at least one more neighborhood elementary school, not two less. Xenia lawyers could challenge the Ohio School Facilities Commission future projections of school building enrollements and its minimum enrollement requirement in court.

As in previous posts, education research proves small neighborhood schools provide better interactive learning environments than larger ones. Because small schools facilitate greater personal interaction, teachers and students enjoy learning more and consequently are more productive. (See my series titled Xenia Community Schools Rebuilding Plan I, II, III)

This blogger has a graduate level education in secondary education.

Leave a comment

Posted in economy, taxes, Xenia Community Schools

Tagged , , , , , , ,