Bob McDonnell could stab us in the back

Last week, we mentioned Virginia’s informed consent ultrasound bill, here:

 http://griffinelection.wordpress.com/2012/02/17/virginias-ultrasound-bill-a-major-step-forward-for-women-and-unborn-children/

The bill is almost ready for signing and Governor McDonnell is presumably, trying to think of ways to provide for an “opt-out” or some other nonsense that would render the bill null and void. 

I strongly encourage Governor McDonnell to not stab his colleagues in the back over a bill that he has championed.

The reason republicans have so badly lost the messaging war on this . . . IS MCDONNELL’S FAULT.  The bill has been under fire for a week now from every MSNBC talking head imaginable.  Not once has the leader of our party in Virginia come out in strong support of the bill.  Not once has he even said that no “probe” is required in the language of the statute.  Not once has he mentioned the fact that the most invasive probe in an abortion procedure is the abortion probe in the woman.  Not once has he looked like a leader.     

The question is whether Mr. McDonnell represents people like us who elected him as AG and Governor, or whether he is beholden to media clowns like Al Sharpton and Rachael Maddow.  I can assure him that they will never vote for him no matter what he does.  This is a bill that he championed.  This is the kind of stuff that he used to introduce when he was in the state legislature. 

I truly hope that Mr. McDonnell has not lost his zest for passing legislation that protects women and children alike. 

As someone who made phone calls for Mr. McDonnell, walked up and down cold streets in past Octobers for Mr. McDonnell and has given up entire weekends for Mr. McDonnell, I expect better than this.  I expect more than this.  This kind of indecisive weakness is not what we are accustomed from seeing from him.    

As a Virginia voter, I call on Mr. McDonnell to:

1.)    Defend the bill – make the case for it for heaven’s sake;

2.)    Sign the bill

3.)    Do not amend it.  Do not put extraneous restrictions on it.  Sign it as is. 

Mr. McDonnell should feel assured that this is the kind of decision that will show (1) Virginians looking for a Senator to defeat Mark Warner that we can trust him and (2) republicans looking for an excuse to vote for Romney in November’s presidential election, that we can count on the VP, even if we can’t count on Romney. 

Tim Griffin is the editor of griffinelection.com and a very, very, very angry Virginia voter.

As the 2012 general contest for president begins to take shape, republicans are finally seeing the race clearly.  None of our four candidates can beat Barack Obama. 

Sure, there is a path to victory for Mitt Romney should the bottom fall out of the economy next October.  There is a path to victory for Santorum should he convince the media to let go of social issues and allow him to discuss his “Made in America” jobs plan.  But as it stands now, despite the fact that the White House is ours for the taking, Barack Obama will beat any of our guys.  There are over 250 days until Election Day.  A lot can change, but as it stands now – the GOP is dead in the water.

Our guys

Ron Paul would be destroyed by Obama for obvious reasons.  Think Barry Goldwater proportions.  He is too far out on the fringe.  Libertarianism belongs in our party.  But unfettered libertarianism isn’t a legitimate winner in U.S. Politics.

Newt Gingrich is now more disliked by republicans and democrats than Sarah Palin.  He record is terrible.  His personal history is ugly.  His leadership skills are lacking.  He simply would have little chance of beating Obama where it counts in Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Virginia, etc.

Rick Santorum is trying to stay away from social issues but the media is not going to allow it.  The MSM is obsessed with right-wing social issues.  They sit around and lament about viewpoints that really have no effect on job creation and GDP growth, as republicans try to move past such divisive issues.  Because of that, combined with Santorum’s record as a Bush-big-government-conservative, he is going to have a hard time beating Obama.  Although Santorum can be disciplined enough to stay on point, he has an uphill battle.  Santorum is the best guy left, but Romney is spending $20 million this week to cut him off at the knees.  Even if Santorum makes it out of this primary, it is hard to see how his angry persona will instill hope in the hearts of American voters. 

Mitt Romney is a loser.  The conservative base has been saying this since 2008.  He has only won one race in his entire career and he had no chance of being re-elected.  Americans would rather have a guy like Obama with whom they disagree than someone who they cannot truly know.  Romney on the stump this week showed his awkwardness in discussing lakes and trees.  He will never be the every man but he can’t seem to own who he is.  Save the fringe “Occupy” kids, no one is going to hold success against him if he can own it.  But he can’t seem to figure out how to “let Mitt be Mitt.”  Romney isn’t a real person so he won’t get independents.  Romney isn’t a conservative so the base won’t hit the ground for him. If republicans don’t like him, how can we expect non-republicans to like him?  He really has no path to victory.

Brokered Convention

What amazes me is all of the talk we hear about a brokered convention saving the day.  We should be assured if Romney, Santorum or Gingrich get a majority of delegates going into the Tampa convention, they will take the party down with them rather than allowing someone coming from outside in as the nominee.  Honestly, if we allow a new person to circumvent our process, we probably deserve that.  Let’s face it, the American people aren’t going to like the fact that they endured twenty debates and over fifty races only to be ignored.  What’s worse is that the names being floated to run, are all worst candidates than the guys we have running.  It goes to show how out-of-touch the establishment is with where voters are.

Jeb Bush’s name continues to be dropped in this race.  Why?  Who thinks it is a good idea to have party elders throw another Bush in the mix?  Did these guys forget that we lost 2006 and 2008 to Barack Obama because of Bush fatigue?  Did compassionate conservatism work?  Is the electorate at large clamoring for a fourth Bush term out of the last seven terms?  Let’s be frank, Jeb Bush may be a good guy, but establishment recruiting of him to be our nominee by bypassing the electoral college would be an unmitigated disaster.  It is hard to see how this could end well.

Chris Christie is another name being tossed around.  He is a great governor.  He is politically savvy.  He made a seasoned veteran move last week by lowering the New Jersey flag in honor of Whitney Houston, knowing that republicans weren’t ever going to abandon him over it, while endearing himself to many voters that may not have looked at him before – without any political loss.  But Chris Christie’s official position on abortion is pro-choice.  Many readers may have abortion fatigue right now, but republican voters care about it.  And that “personally against, publicly for” isn’t going to fly.  If killing is wrong, you should probably try to do something to stop it.  With all of the abortion issues up in the air right now, pro-lifers would not stand for it.  Most pro-lifers aren’t one issue voters.  The Pro-life position isn’t even the “most important” issue to them.  But, it doesn’t mean it won’t be considered and pro-lifers would be less likely to vote for a pro-choice candidate when he was put forward by party leadership than winning an actual election fair and square.  For all of his pros, this one con would be his undoing. 

Mitch Daniels could never beat Barack Obama in 2012, yet many republicans have been pining after him for a year now.  First of all, the electorate doesn’t know who he is.  You can’t bypass the electoral process by dropping in an unknown.  It is a recipe for disaster.  Secondly, and I realize this is shallow, but it will make a difference.  Daniels is a short guy.  He is almost a foot shorter than Barack Obama at 5’6.  Of course this doesn’t matter on policy grounds and no voter should judge anyone by the way that they look.  This would never be a reason that I would consider voting for a candidate.  But it doesn’t mean many voters won’t.  Like it or not, physical presence has an effect on a voter’s subconscious.  Debates featuring Obama towering over him isn’t going to play better with voters now, then it did with Kennedy and the big-headed, sweaty Nixon. 

Worst of all, last year Daniels declared that he would call a truce on social issues.  That’s right, after Obama has pushed forward for four years to promote overseas abortion funding, abortion in our healthcare, government imposed abortion policy on churches, gays in the military, new rights for homosexuals in America and has allowed the Justice Department to not defend our DOMA laws as well as an entire slew of new liberal federal judges including two SCOTUS justices, Daniels, rather than quietly trying to regain all of the ground we have lost over three years would simply throw up the White flag.  He would down the ball.  That comment will come back to bite him over and over.  I can tell you that conservatives will say, “no thanks” to Mr. Daniels.  To be clear, those aren’t even important issues for the electorate and they shouldn’t be general campaign talking points.  But for him to make such an idiotic statement, shows that he doesn’t care about the issues that the base cares about and that he obviously isn’t ready for prime time. 

So…….That leaves us with seven unelectable candidates.  But the truth is, candidates that at least go through the “meat grinder” are better for it and we come out with a better understanding of where they come from.  Our best bet, is to stick with the guys that we have.  We should see if Santorum can win Michigan and/or Ohio the week on message.  We should give him a few days to get back on message.  For republicans daydreaming about a new candidate jumping in, they should know that the grass is not always greener on the other side.

Ok, I fooled you, but it would have, if it had any jurisdiction.  While no court can overturn SCOTUS precedent, the Alabama Supreme Court released a major ruling last week.  The Court published a unanimous ruling that mothers within the state can pursue wrongful death claims when their pre-viability baby is killed by a medical professional.  But the money quote(s) are what will make this case, with little legal significance, a rallying cry for the pro-life movement at large (and Planned Parenthood’s next fundraiser).   

The Court stated that viability is “arbitrary” and changes with medical technology.  This is important because Planned Parenthood v. Casey essentially bans states from putting any meaningful restrictions on abortion before “viability”, which is essentially 21-24 weeks. 

The Court said that Roe was out of step with other areas of law.  Here are the money quotes: 

Viability

“Roe’s viability rule was based on inaccurate history and was mostly unsupported by legal precedent. Medical advances since Roe have conclusively demonstrated that an unborn child is a unique human being at every stage of development.”

Science has changed since Roe

“Since Roe was decided in 1973, advances in medical and scientific technology have greatly expanded our knowledge of prenatal life . . . [t]he development of ultrasound technology has enhanced medical and public understanding, allowing us to watch the growth and development of the unborn child in a way previous generations could never have imagined.”

Undoubtedly human life

“Similarly, advances in genetics and related fields make clear that a new and unique human being is formed at the moment of conception, when two cells, incapable of independent life, merge to form a single, individual human entity, [o]f course, that new life is not yet mature – growth and development are necessary before that life can survive independently – but it is nonetheless human life. And here has been a broad legal consensus in America, even before Roe, that the life of a human being begins at conception.”

Unborn children deserve legal protection

“An unborn child is a unique and individual human being from conception, and, therefore, he or she is entitled to the full protection of law at every stage of development.”

 “For these reasons, Roe’s viability rule is neither controlling nor persuasive here and should be rejected by other states until the day it is overruled by the United States Supreme Court.”

*Some of the final language is from the concurrence rather than the majority. 

Why this matters . . .

There is a reason why this matters beside the fact that pro-lifers will be encouraged and Planned Parenthood and President Obama will use this to raise money on.  When political issues fail or are defeated, they are pushed to the back burner for a few years.  Think about our reluctance to bomb Iran for WMD’s after our Iraq experience.  Consider that following the failure of Hillarycare, Democrats didn’t try healthcare reform again for almost twenty years.  No one ever tries to fix Social security because too many presidents have failed.    

But the right to life issue for all Americans, will not go away.  Want to pass a healthcare law?  Abortion shows its face.  Want to pass a budget or raise the debt ceiling?  Gotta deal with abortion first.  Military benefits, overseas funding, state’s rights, presidential campaigns, SCOTUS nominees, social issues, domestic policy, foreign policy, fiscal policy – they all have to deal with this one issue.  It is the one issue that seems to strike across them all. 

The reason? 

Well there are two reasons.  First, pro-aborts are on the wrong side of history and like slavery it will not go away.  Second, SCOTUS made this decision in defiance of the will of the American people.  When a court circumvents the democratic process, especially on the wrong side, it strips society to be able to find a solution under their common social contract.  Thus, rather than finding common ground we are relegated to our hard lined positions.  This issue isn’t going away.  One way or another Roe is going to be overturned or killed by a thousand cuts — in our lifetime.  That doesn’t solve much, it leaves us with 51 new battles to fight, but it is a start.

I applaud the Alabama Supreme Court.  I am sure such strong language toward the Supreme Court will be roundly mocked.  But many times, those that stand alone today, turn out to be the leaders of the movement tomorrow.

There has been a lot of angst over the post Citizens United world of “Super” Political Action Committees (PACs) that act as vehicles for Americans to unite with other Americans on common political beliefs.  The rise of the Super PAC has led to a slew of advertisements, mostly negative in 2010 and 2012.  Many still claim that this has hurt the national debate.  They worry about corporations, millionaires and billionaires buying elections and undermining the political process. 

The truth is, halfway into our second major political season, this flat out hasn’t happened. 

Yes, more money is being spent.

Yes, the rich are doing most of that spending.

But, the American people have found themselves more informed on positions, campaign plans and voting records than ever before.

That’s not a bad thing.

Many democrats blamed Super PACs in large part, like Crossroads GPS, for their 2010 monumental losses.  It is true that they played a major role in swinging the House to republicans.  Conservative Super PAC’s on every political issue joined together to cut out vulnerable members of Congress.  It worked, not because the money was spent deviously or because of any infringement on the democratic process, but because we had a class of center-left pols, representing center-right districts, voting in line with Nancy Pelosi.  Most of these causalities were bound to occur, with or without increased spending.    

The reason Super PAC’s succeeded in taking out so many representatives and senators, is because most of them were terrible.  Representatives like Tom Perriello (D-VA) who is one district over from the author, took their wins for granted and fell in line with what the San Francisco speaker told them to do.  Rural Virginia doesn’t have the same values as San Francisco.  Super PAC’s didn’t tip the balance in that respect.  Sure, Super PAC’s contributed to his defeat, but had Perriello taken votes that reflected his district, he wouldn’t have been so vulnerable. 

Over the last four months we have seen the rise of the GOP presidential nominee super PACs.  We’ve laid witness to the Romney Super PAC takedown of Gingrich in Iowa; the Gingrich takedown of Romney in South Carolina; and visa-versa again in Florida.  Over the next ten days, we are going to watch Romney slash his way through Rick Santorum in Michigan and Nevada.  That doesn’t necessarily benefit the GOP because Santorum is a better candidate than Romney.  But Santorum won’t go down because of money.  He’ll go down because of a career full of bad legislation and fringe sound bites.    

The money has in large part come from big time donors.  But the questions to ask are: has our speech been impaired?  Has the democratic process been violated?  If so, are the Super PAC’s to blame?

The answer to all three has been a resounding “no”. 

More speech is a good thing.  We expose these guys with brighter flashlights not less flashlights. 

The more speech we have, the more we realize what terrible records both democrats and republicans have.  The better look we get at Romney, the more we see his flip flops, the better look we get at Obama we see that he is one of the least transformative presidents in American history.  Super PACs didn’t pay the author to say that, it is simply the facts.    

The reason Gingrich, Romney and Santorum have been so affected by SUPER Pac ads?  They all have terrible records.  That is why the ads are working.  Jim DeMint wouldn’t be taken down by Republican Super PACs because he has a good record that can withstand scrutiny. 

In the age of internet, smart phones and the twenty-four hour news cycle, massive advertisements are going to be held accountable for mistruths.  Seriously, it takes you MAYBE 100 seconds to locate the truth and that is ad B doesn’t follow ad A and rebuke it. 

Even the most memorable mistruths of the right (see, “death panels”) and the left (see, Paul Ryan pushing a grandmother off of a cliff) didn’t start with Super PACs but with our own elected leaders.  They have simply acted as an extension of what is already occurring.    

America has the broadest free speech rights in the world.  Modern America has, for decades, held the belief that MORE speech unleashes the truth and dispels lies better than less speech.

Both parties will run unprecedented advertisements during this election season.  But we have seen nothing to indicate that these will act as the game changers.  Gas prices, unemployment, GDP growth, all of the random “indexs” – these will be the measure of success for our President. 

Before the rise of the Super PAC, republicans won big in 2004, only to lose badly in 2006.  We are simply a fickle electorate.  Whether each side runs five commercials or ten per hour, it won’t matter.  Both parties will spent fortunes and it will even out.  

Blaming corporations or the rich can certainly be terrifying.  But is nothing more than a non-existent boogeyman.  We need to blame all or our politicians collectively, for spending all of our money on keeping the poor, poor and fighting unfunded wars.  On both sides of the aisle, these Super PACs have been successful at pulling back the curtain on all of our politicians.  The electorate has benefited from it.  We all have.

Earlier this week, Virginia’s General Assembly passed a bill that would require a woman seeking an abortion to undergo a transvaginal ultrasound test before obtaining an early term abortion. 

Opponents are outraged, as always, at the mere whiff of a shadow of a measure that promotes a culture of life.  This time, they argue that it is too invasive, as the ultrasound requires penetration into the woman’s body through the vagina.  Although I seriously doubt their concern is for women, I do share the concern.  As a libertarian-minded conservative, I hate to see government requiring such procedures on Virginia’s women as Rachael Maddow put it. 

However, I join republicans in supporting the measure for three important reasons. 

First off, the Commonwealth isn’t simply requiring women to undergo this procedure on a whim.  The state requires that health care providers follow certain regulations for any medical procedure.  This will now become part of the medical procedure known as abortion.  If a woman does not choose to have an abortion, she will not be required to have this medical test.  To hear opponents speak, every Virginia women would have reason to fear.  That isn’t the case.  This is just another in a string of tests required by the Commonwealth before receiving an abortion.

Second, informed consent is very important.  Virginia Democrats are calling on Governor McDonnell to allow women to have the power to opt-out of the test through refusing consent.  In many ways, this goes against our medical culture.  When we, as Americans, visit our local health care providers we like to know all of the facts before undergoing a procedure.  In fact, if a doctor withholds important facts from you on a medical procedure, the doctor can be held civilly liable or worse.  This test merely requires informed consent. 

An ultrasound performed from outside of a mother-to-be at eight weeks, comes out looking very unclear.  Seeing an unclear photo or not seeing one at all doesn’t truly give our women the necessary informed consent necessary to make a life altering decision.  The problem is that the baby is not large enough for us to get an accurate ultrasound photo through the epidermis and uterus.  However, an ultrasound photo taken from inside of the body is an amazing sight to behold.  At eight weeks, you can see a perfectly formed baby with a face and extremities in the fetal position.  It really is amazing. 

Although the discomfort of the test to women should not be in any way dismissed or downplayed, this really is an important step in allowing mothers to be informed of the ramifications of the choice that they make.  Hundreds of thousands of American women struggle with Post Abortion Stress Syndrome.  For those who advocate the rights of women, their responsibility should not only be on extending the “right to choose” before the procedure, but should extend to ensuring that these women do not have to endure a decision for the rest of their lives that they did not truly understand. 

Third, abortion proponents are being disingenuous when they argue that this is a restriction on a “woman’s right to choose.”  In no way will a mother be forced to pay for this test, nor will any result make her abortion more difficult to procure.  Roe and Casey are the law of the land and this bill comports with both as reasonable.  Informed consent is the least we can do for many women that truly do not understand the irreversible decision they are about to make.    

For Virginia pro-choicers who truly desire for abortion to be “safe, legal and rare” I implore you to look at ways to make that talking point a reality.  This is a reasonable informed consent law that will not only serve Virginia’s women and unborn children well, but reflects well on Virginia as a place where choosing life is part of our culture.

Over the next few weeks we’ll tackle personhood here in Virginia.

Tim Griffin is the editor of griffinelection.com and a Virginia resident/voter

Last week, Republican war hawks, such as the man that handed us Obama himself, Mr. John McCain, called on our government to give away weapon’s to the guerrilla opposition forces in Syria. 

This is a very bad idea.  Why aren’t republicans acting more responsible on foreign policy these days?

We know that Assad is bad.  We know that his regime is bad.  We know that he is killing his own people.  But we don’t know that it is in America’s interest to arm people east of Europe that we don’t know very well.  Historically, this isn’t a good idea.

Maybe it is just me, but it seems that giving weapons to people with whom we have completely different values with, so that they may defeat other people with whom we have completely different values with, rarely works.

None of our middle east involvement has really yielded any long term policy gains for the US.  Yes, Afghanistan is successful for the simple fact that keeping “terrorists” off guard overseas has left them unable to attack Americans on our soil.  But Iraq’s future doesn’t look bright (from a U.S. perspective) and although we should all rejoice at dictators falling, Egypt and Libya haven’t necessarily yielded results that work to our advantage. 

Afghanistan posed somewhat of a threat to us.  Iraq and Libya, not so much.  Put Syria in that category too.  With regard to regimes that are no direct threat to us, we should be very responsible.

As much as we may not like Obama, he has done a decent job on foreign policy.  He was a prime candidate for disaster on foreign affairs, but he has done pretty well for himself. 

And although it may be nothing new, maybe the Obama doctrine of a responsible foreign policy is what the Republican party needs to get back to.  Reagan didn’t fight any extended war as massive as Iraq or Afghanistan.  And yes, the war on terror changed things.  But it doesn’t mean we continue to get involved with Iran and Syria, not when there are smarter ways of doing things.

Before we go attacking Syria or arming their militias, we should really consider whether that is a conservative policy.  I realize it is a neo-conservative policy, but is it tea party, get-the-spending-under-control conservative policy?

Currently, the House is debating an infrastructure bill.  It needs to be abandoned because we can’t pay for it.  But that doesn’t mean we don’t need it.  Until we stop spending so much money on both defense AND entitlements, it will be IMPOSSIBLE to get the budget under control. 

So the question I keep returning to is, is getting involved with Syria likely to yield any tangible benefit to the U.S.?  Proponents would say, “yes” they are terrorists for Iran, yet those proponents will find themselves unable to demonstrate why Assad’s replacement will be any better than Assad.

Is getting involved with Syria likely to yield closer relations with the middle East?  No.  Maybe it will benefit us, maybe it won’t.  All we can do is wish and hope. 

As republicans, we can continue to be the party of security while also being the party of responsibility.  Unfunded wars without tangible benefits are not the path to establishing a permanent* republican majority going forward.

Any capital spent overseas is wasted when we could be reforming the system here at home.  While Bush spent most of his capital in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama has spent his on healthcare, financial reform, taxing the rich, abortion, don’t ask, don’t tell, etc.

Imagine if a republican president could restrain himself from getting involved in unnecessary foreign affairs, but would instead use his capital to prepare to compete with China rather than people living in the third world in the third century.  Imagine if Bush has used his capital not only to get temporary tax cuts, but to change education in a CONSERVATIVE direction or to make health insurance more affordable for Americans using conservative ideals.  Imagine what we could do.

We live in a center-right nation and center-right policies would keep our party in power for two decades to come.  Giving us an opportunity to do the other things we need to do like repealing the Obama term and implementing conservative judges nationwide. 

GOP candidates looking to knee cap Obama on foreign policy are going to find themselves losing that argument with voters.  The reason?

People don’t care who is leading Syria, they care about getting a job, health insurance and retirement.  We are the party do that.

Why can’t a GOP president do both?  Unfortunately, there isn’t enough political capital available for a president to make headway on ever issue.  Even Mr. Obama found it impossible to tackle healthcare and climate change. 

This requires us to exert some self-control in which battles we choose to fight — both figuratively and literally.

Until then, mainstream conservatives need to oppose involvement in Syria and even Iran, while not standing in the way of our allies protecting themselves.  This is the responsible policy that deserves the label, “conservative.”

Two weeks ago, the Obama administration was mandating that Catholic institutions pay for healthcare premiums and supply healthcare plans that supported practices that collided with the Church’s religious doctrine. 

A week later, the Administration compromised with an “accommodation” on its behalf. 

Now, the Obama administration is mandating that Catholic institutions pay for healthcare premiums and supply healthcare plans that support practices that collide with the Church’s religious doctrine.

There was no change.  It was the usual accounting gimmick.  In fact, the Administration compromised nothing.  They refused to meet the Church in the middle. 

The media has been framing this as a conflict of Constitutional rights.

It’s not.

Many have been weighing this as a fight between the enumerated Constitutional right of religious freedom against the judicially created right to privacy.

It’s not.

This debate has been entirely focused on the enumerated Constitutional right of religious freedom vs. the discretion given to the Secretary of Health and Human Services on a statute that barely passed Congress. 

That is where we’re at.

Here’s the deal . . .

Two weeks ago the government was forcing religious institutions to violate their right to practice their religion; post-“accommodation” the government is still violating those rights. 

Now, rather that have Catholic institutions pay healthcare premiums that guaranteed for the provision of abortificients by making Church ministries co-pay the medication’s prescription . . . the insurance provider paid by the ministry will provide birth control, the morning after pill and sterilization “free of charge.” 

Obama argues that because birth control lowers the healthcare costs of pregnancy, it is essentially revenue neutral.  And he is right, long term.  But how long is long term?  And even down the road buying birth control becomes a wise “investment” because it prevents other costs from popping up, the morning after pill and contraceptives still have to be purchased from a pharmaceutical company.   

In eleven and a half months, Ministries are going to have to purchase healthcare insurance, and that insurance MUST provide contraceptives and abortificients, and these drugs aren’t going to be given out for free.  Someone is going to have to pay for it.  And health insurance providers, unlike the Catholic Churches, aren’t in the business of charity work.  The costs will be passed onto the buyer, Catholic institutions.  Insurance companies don’t just cut their losses, they pass them onto the consumer.    

Under the Affordable Care Act, Conscious protections no longer exist for religious ministry outreaches of Churches. 

But that isn’t all . . .

It gets worse

Obama stated that these drugs would be “free” for all, employed by ministries. 

If an employee, employed at a secular business, is seeking birth control under their employer’s healthcare plan, they will be able to obtain it — if they will pay a co-pay.  They will have to pay something, but they will get it.

But if an employee of a religious institution seeks birth control, the morning after pill or sterilization, they will get it free of charge. 

Under this law, it will be easier and cheaper to get contraceptives and abortificients if you work FOR a Church ministry rather than in a secular business. 

Liberals mock conservatives when they discuss the “war on religion” in America.  But we didn’t dream this feeling up.  Honest liberals need to realize that this is too far and this is why we feel like our values are under attack.    

Fortunately, the majority of Catholic Bishops have held to their church doctrine and demanded more.  Obama has declared this the end of the discussion.  And we are going to Court. 

Constitutional Questions

It really is difficult to call this a compromise with a straight face.  This Administration seems to believe that they have a choice on whether to respect America’s religious ministries.  The mistake is that they have construed the First Amendment to protect Church buildings only.  But the First Amendment wasn’t written to protect the rights of Churches.  It was written to protect the religious freedoms and rights of the people individually and when joined together as a church.

If a group of people band together under religious pretenses that have governed America since its very first birth control pill was handed out, they may choose to do so.  Obama seems to believe the First Amendment will only protect buildings defined as churches by the IRS code, that isn’t how it’s supposed to be.  The First Amendment protects us all.  Liberals and conservatives and everyone in the middle.

Although the doctrine of judicial review is dangerous, it is our law.  This would be the time to use it.  At the end of the day, no matter what you believe, clearly enumerated Constitutional Amendments, trump agency interpretation of a Congressional Act that couldn’t even pass a filibuster.  Liberals should come together with us on this, it is not just right wingers that can have their rights so easily erased.

Only a couple of years ago, a few big financial institutions almost buried the U.S. economy.  These lending and banking institutions were labeled “too big to fail.”  Since Governor Jon Huntsman has dropped out of the GOP presidential race, no one has talked about these companies that are too big to fail. 

They need to.  It is politically expedient for right-wing pols to campaign against a vote for the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) and bailouts.  It is not surprising to hear Bush republicans and Democrats repeat the mantra that sometimes you have to betray the free market to save it.  But neither is a completely responsible viewpoint and neither is going to give republicans the kind of reputation that we are going to need to create a “permanent” governing majority.    

A problem

The Tea Party is against bailouts; so is the loitering “occupy” movement.  But what republicans are going to do something about it?  The problem is that if an institution is “too big to fail” then it is too big.  Republicans love capitalism because it works.  It is sad when a company like Blockbuster Video goes out of business, but it is good for the American people when they only have to pay $1 to watch a movie rather than $5.  Capitalism weeds out the week companies and benefits the consumers.  The best companies win and the worse companies lose.  The consumer should always win.

But what is capitalism if we have to ensure that certain institutions that are utilizing losing business models cannot fail?  If we have to make the losers winners to keep the consumer afloat, what is it all for?  This gives us the opposite effect of capitalism. 

That leads me to my question, which republican presidential candidate left in the race cares about this issue, which candidate is willing to do something about it? 

A preface: this isn’t about redistributing the wealth

Some of these financial institutions are, in 2012, bigger than ever.  Some companies have still taken a huge risk on certain consumer markets.  Many institutions still don’t have a large enough portfolio to take on the kind that almost sank them a couple of years ago. 

This isn’t about success.  Let me be clear, neither I nor any true conservative should give a damn about how much money these companies make in profits.  I don’t care how much a CEO or Board member makes.  Far be it from me to get angry at other people’s success from behind my computer.  Americans that do get angry about these factors need to be ashamed of themselves.  These feelings aren’t complicated; they are simply a matter of envy. 

If you are mad about the middle class shrinking, then fight for a structure that makes it easier to succeed.  Determine a method to grow the middle class.  Don’t fight to take away success from winners, that only creates dependency.  Facebook is said to have created 100 millionaires, Home Depot, even more.

America has been so successful that now days, even the lower class, or the “poor” have a telephone that fits in their pocket, a television in their living room and restaurants on every street corner that can feed a family of four for the equivalent of two hours of pay at a minimum wage earning level.

We have changed what it means to be “poor”.  Why shouldn’t our main goal to continue EVERY class up a few notches every couple of years.

To argue that we fix inequality through “redistribution of wealth” is simply lazy.  It is a solution for the American that isn’t willing to tackle the difficult issue in all of its complexities.  When presented with an extremely difficult, complicated and convoluted problem, the intellectually lazy demand that we simply take money away from the successful and give it to others, while never fixing the problem to begin with.

My problem isn’t with individual success, or with the success of businesses.  My sole and only issue, lies with institutions that risk our mortgages and livelihoods with reckless gambling.  We have to ensure that capitalism acts to make the consumers winners as it always should when practiced properly. 

Solutions    

I would love to hear someone, like . . . Rick Santorum, looking for an electability argument, to make the case that we shouldn’t clamp down on salaries or profits but instead should ensure that never again are the American people held hostage by a big lender or banker.

That is why I would like to see a plan that requires institutions with too much risk to be broken up.  If they are too big to fail then they are too big.  Or, why shouldn’t we require a more balanced portfolio for risk takers? 

The guiding principal is that any business model must yield both risk and reward.  If you want to own millions of home mortgages, that is fine.  You are taking a risk and if you win you should be rewarded.  However, if these companies cannot handle a loss without going under and taking the American people with them, they need to be broken up.  That practice needs to be prevented through ONE, SINGLE regulation.

In this post-modern age, the government should not be a counter-weight to rich people and it shouldn’t be a pillager of success – business or personal success.  But government, while remaining hesitant, should not be afraid to be a counter-weight to institutions that are so big that no one else can take them on. 

For example, the federal government should not be in the business, in this century, of taking on businesses over wages, benefits, working conditions, etc.  The people have ways of fixing those problems, through state legislatures, unions, and civil rights groups.  We have a people-powered media that has all but overthrown the gate-keepers of the old media order.  We can take on the Wal-Mart’s of the world.  That is not to say that big corporations are our enemy.  They aren’t.  They benefit most of us more than we can possibly know.  I am not talking about big businesses or even consumer business models of any sort. I am talking about lending institutions that really serve little purpose that smaller banks, properly equipped, couldn’t handle in our communities.    

After three years, we still have no tool to counter act against, not big business, but omnipresent businesses, businesses like General Electric that not only make light bulbs, but that have their fingers in every sect of the American economy.  Again, I have no problem with that, but WHAT IF they fail like Lehman Brothers or AIG or Fanny and Freddy? 

Succinctly, what I’d like to see, is a republican presidential candidate that doesn’t engage in “class warfare,”  but is willing to take a responsible approach to financial regulation, so that we never again have to make the decision between socialistic action and allowing “capitalism to fail”.  Maybe it will include breaking up some big banks.  Maybe it will put limits on lending practices.  Maybe it will include companies to not over-invest in one market for fear that, the housing market for example, might one day collapse.  Something has got to give and Dodd-Frank will probably do more damage than it is worth.  The GOP is the party of ideas and the intellectually honest party, it is time for us to prove it on an issue that matters.

It would be irresponsible for us to spend another election cycle blasting bailouts, without offering solutions to bailouts other than “voting no”.  For a candidate like Rick Santorum, trying to prove he is both a fiscal conservative as well as a mainstream electable candidate, this kind of platform is gold if you can articulate it.  And let’s face it, Rick Santorum as of late, has been masterfully articulating conservatism.  Whether it is Santorum or someone else, I would like to hear a republican that can outsmart Obama on this issue with responsible, conservative solutions for fixing our problems.

The White House has been bleeding support for close to a week now.  The secretary of Health and Human Services came out last week with an interpretation of the Affordable Health Choices Act (“Obamacare”) that allows democrats to force all Catholic and other religious institutions to provide contraceptives (pre-conception) as well as post-conception (abortificient) care in their healthcare plans. 

The Catholic Church has risen up in an admiral manner against this attack on the famed “separation of Church and State.” 

But evangelicals and other pro-lifers know all-too-well that many Catholic leaders will only fight to a certain point.  A “compromise” is coming and we need to ensure it is the right one, not only to prevent the expansion of government-sponsored abortion policy but as a stopgap against an infringement on religious liberty.    

Under fire from the right and mainstream democrats, the White House is already talking “compromise.”  This has been handled beautifully by Obama’s team.  They started the narrative on the far left, people were shocked.  Now all we want is some sort of compromise!  Anything!  We’ll take it!  Now, in a masterful stroke, the White House will attempt to move the conversation back to the center-left so that the final product “isn’t so bad.” 

But we can still win this thing by trashing the entire proposal. 

What the White House will likely offer is their abortion “go-to” alternative.  The fungible money well is never dry for compromisers on this issue.  Like the Stupak executive order and the Hyde Amendment before that, the Administration is likely working on a model that will serve to expand coverage for abortion, while ensuring that no well-intentioned religious person will be asked to pay for it.

Essentially, our government policy is to separate money with the lines of a checkbook ledger and say that the money on the left can pay for abortions while the money on the right cannot.  We pay no attention to the fact that it all goes to the same place and tax payer funds sustain and enable groups that fund abortions.    

Compromise

This compromise will likely set up a similar system except that the private company will be forced to provide a way to obtain the procedure, while the Church will be forced to provide the plan that includes the procedure, as long as the mother pays out-of-pocket. 

The Administration will force Catholic employers to adopt healthcare programs that provide for abortificient pills and birth control, but the asterisk will simply say employees must pay out-of-pocket.  Catholics will be forced to now play the part of enabler.     

Catholics will have no option to entirely avoid plans that don’t offer abortion.  Instead,

Why are the democrats forcing this issue? 

Democrats are trying to make the case that abortive pills fall under the category of necessary and “preventive” services.  If they can get even Catholic churches ensuring that a way to obtain an abortion is somehow offered under every insurance plan, then they’ve moved the ball farther down the field.    

If Catholics compromise on this, they are still ceding ground to Mr. Obama and the pro-abort lobby.  Not only that, but they are allowing First Amendment rights to be trampled over.  I realize this is a grown up discussion.  Playing hard ball is difficult.  Most voting Catholics tend to vote Democrat.  The Catholic Church is in danger of being heavily fined and losing federal funding.  This is going to be a tough fight.  It may seem like a small price to pay for many Catholics.  But they can win this thing yet.

The winds is at the backs of Catholics.  Obama needs them to drop this issue more than they need Obama to bend to their will.  Catholics have a year to comply, Obama has a few more days to stop the bleeding before his poll numbers begin to drop among Catholics in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. 

We have already compromised

Before anyone accuses the religious right of not being willing to compromise, let me remind them that the country already allows abortions to take place.  That is a pretty big compromise.  Not only that, but almost no restrictions can be put on the procedure during the first trimester of pregnancy.  We allow it in every state.  We allow people to get it under Medicaid and we prop up groups like Planned Parenthood with our tax dollars.  We’ve compromised well over.  Compromise consists of meeting in the middle.  We’ve done a lot better than that.   

The compromise has already been struck and I’d say it is 90% compromising on the right, 10% compromising from the left. 

A Higher Law

Under God’s law, the only permissible way for Christians of any denomination to get out of this one is to demand conscious protection laws for all Americans.  That is the LEAST a compromise should look like. 

Let’s be clear.  This is only secondarily an abortion issue.  Primarily it is a First Amendment issue.  The Government should not be able to tell anyone how to practice their religion.  A new healthcare law doesn’t provide an exemption to the first Amendment!  Whether we are Catholic, Mormon, Jewish, Muslim or Evangelical, as an employer, we shouldn’t be forced to pay for plans that provide an option to obtain a procedures that we believe, based off of indisputable scientific fact — is soft infanticide.  It doesn’t matter whether you agree or not, it is our religious belief.  Waivers for conscious protection should be granted to anyone who declares so on religious grounds.  This includes Catholic hospitals, evangelical universities, Jewish gas station owners, or hog slaughtering farms owned and operated by Muslims.  Conscious protection is a fundamental result of a broadly construed First Amendment, and in America our First Amendment has always been broadly construed (excluding Christians).      

The Bible

Catholics compromise at their own peril.  But they don’t have to.  Catholics pushed through Obama’s healthcare law when it was on the ten yard line, he owes them and he can’t get re-elected without them. 

But if they compromise and offer a way for people to pay for birth control and abortificients, they not only enable more abortions to take place, they not only deepen the institution of abortion in our culture, they violate a higher law.  The Bible is clear on when life begins and at the end of the day Christians aren’t on this Earth to provide healthcare benefits to their employees or get federal funding from the United States government or to compromise with what secular humanists believe is the right thing to do.  We are here to look after those who cannot take care of themselves.  We are to stand up for widows and orphans, not adopt insurance plans that exploit single mothers and kill would-be orphans. 

God told David that he knew him in the womb.

“For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.” Psalm 139:13

God told Job that he was formed and fashioned in the womb.  Our creation was no accident, it was by design. 

“Did not he who made me in the womb make him? And did not one fashion us in the womb?” Job 31:15

“Your hands have made and fashioned me; give me understanding that I may learn your commandments.” Psalm 119:73

John the Baptist was self aware enough as an unborn infant, that he literally leapt in the womb as he recognized Jesus’ presence. 

“When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.”  Luke 1:41

God knew our spirits in the womb and he knew the spirits of over 300,000 lost Americans that were aborted by our nation in 2011. 

“But when He who set me apart, even from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, was pleased to reveal His son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles.” Galatians 1:15-16

We have a responsibility to stand for those who have no one else to stand for them.  Yahweh asked Israel: 

“How long will you defend the unjust
   and show partiality to the wicked?
  Defend the weak and the fatherless;
   uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.
  Rescue the weak and the needy;
   deliver them from the hand of the wicked. Psalm 82

Who is more weak, who is more fatherless than babies chosen for abortion? People that take a pro-abortion position aren’t simply people we disagree with, like we often do on marriage, taxes, foreign policy and entitlements. This is an issue of life and death. 

“Learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow.” Isaiah 1:17

God says that we need not show partiality to wicked people.  We don’t need to defend people who rally for the cause of snuffing out life when it is socially of financially inconvenient.  We have a responsibility to take up the cause of the fatherless. 

“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves.” Proverbs 31:8-9

The Catholic Church knows what we are facing better than most and that is why it must stand stronger than most.

President Obama picks and chooses when to follow the Bible we adhere to, but the faithful cannot afford to do the same.

Victory within reach

Over the ensuing weeks, the Catholic Church must stand against the Democrats on this issue.  My evangelical brothers and sisters should join them in our support.  While many catholic leaders have been strong, I am sure many others are already weighing how to capitulate, I hope they will not.  They have the political capital to hold strong and to demand conscious law requirements for not only their schools and hospitals BUT FOR ALL private Catholic and other religious business owners and organizations.  As president Obama encouraged us to do last week, stand up for those who cannot stand for themselves.  That is the Church’s responsibility.  If they can do that, they not only win a political fight in America, but they win a small victory in the heavenly battle between righteousness and the enemies thereof.  This is a fight worth waging and victory is within your grasp, but only if they hold strong.         

So here is the compromise – drop the entire demand or we will (1) see you in November and (2) see you in the Courts.  That is the fairest compromise to strike.

Tim Griffin is the editor of griffinelection.com

On the first day of Constitutional Law class in law school, the professor asked us to describe the qualities that an “activist judge” entailed.  It’s safe to say, the Ninth Circuit re-demonstrated what judicial activism looks like.  

For those of you that missed it, a three judge panel from, you guessed it, the most overruled circuit — the Ninth Circuit, overruled the will of the people of California and their Constitutional amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman.

This is no surprise for a few reasons. 

1.)    Liberal activists care for the Constitution only insofar as it will carry them.  In fact, the left has consistently pursued judicial law whenever they couldn’t achieve their objectives through the electorate.  Whether it is replacing prayer in schools with an atheistic education, stealing the rights of the unborn or even gay marriage – the tactics have been the same.  Use the courts to get what you want.

2.)    This was always the plan.  When the California Courts allowed some homosexual people to marry while the law prevented subsequent homosexual citizens to be entitled to the same rights, all citizens were no longer getting equal protection under the law as required by the Fourteenth Amendment.  By allowing two sets of rules to govern the same set of people this was inevitable, it was by design.

3.)    It hardly matters what the people of California believe anymore.  Five years after Prop. 8, the culture has become more accepting of the homosexual lifestyle.  There is a strong chance that Prop. 8 could be overturned by the people by the end of the decade.  But, leftward activists have determined that the state-sanctioned benefits in California are no longer enough.  They must also use the word marriage as well.  Laughably, the same people who were calling for mandated Catholic-funded early-term abortions of young, unborn people yesterday are today fighting for the “civil rights” of gays.  It is suspicious how the far left defines civil rights when it suits them. 

So now the greatest nation on Earth will solve this dilemma.  It will have a culture dialogue and the people of the United States will determine how to deal with this—WRONG. 

Instead of working this out in a democratic fashion, we will wait in anxious anticipation for 18 months to see what one man, Justice Anthony Kennedy has to say.  After millennium of western law on the subject, Mr. Kennedy, as the deciding Ninth vote on the Supreme Court of the United States, will settle this once and for all upon its appeal.

Here is the sad truth.  Conservatives are losing the battle on gay marriage.  Homosexuals are winning over the hearts and minds of the electorate.  Had they simply continued on with this course, they would have decidedly won the argument.  Instead, we are going to get some hodgepodge steaming pile of —- from SCOTUS that uses scrutiny levels to tell us whether James Madison intended our Constitution to allow gay people to marry.  It will be hogwash and it will ensure that the American people are never able to work out a compromise on the subject.  It will create more hostility in the country, not less.    

It is this kind of absurdity that has led to mandated Rudolph’s in the nativity scene and impotent school prayers that may be constitutional depending on the prayor, the prayee, the time and the location. 

Although Americans on the right almost unanimously never, ever discriminate against gay Americans and although gays are getting more and more benefits in states around the U.S. by winning over people to their cause, the far left has decided to mount on attack on our traditional values because it is a “civil rights issue.”

This is typical.  Obama will have to choose sides before November.   Rather than discussing unemployment, presidential candidates will now have to litigate the merits of gay marriage.  And at the end of the day, it is out of the people’s hands in into the lawyers hands. 

A few things need to happen. 

In the short term, we need to fight this very hard.  Not just for the cause of traditional values but to stand up for our Constitution which is being dismantled through thousands of volumes of case law.

The United States Constitution doesn’t say who can get married.  Unless we pass a constitutional amendment or a federal law, the Ninth Circuit and SCOTUS need to mind its own business.  Second, conservatives need to be continually evaluating how much credence and deference the executive and legislative branches are going to give to the judiciary. 

The next time someone starts talking to you about the right-wing, remind them that we have been focused on the economy until this week.  In five days, Planned Parenthood took down a breast cancer research facility, the Obama Administration mandated that Catholic employers violate their religious principles and demonstrated that their love affair with the famed wall of separation between church and state is more of a one-way mirror wherein the government can dictate to the church, as long as it furthers the goals of the Democratic party and now the Ninth Circuit has overruled the will of the people. 

If mainstream democrats don’t want to be focused on the “divisive social issues” of the day, then they should re-claim their party from the fringe and demand that they be focused on the things that matter.  Otherwise, the extremist element of your party will continue to define you to the rest of us and that is not a good long term strategy.