Posted on

What, Exactly, is the Secular Case Against Abortion?

The ProJo today reported that Barth E. Bracy, executive director of the Rhode Island State Right to Life Committee has retained Joseph S. Larisa Jr. to represent the group in “anticipation of challenging the creation of the so-called ‘health-benefits exchange.'” Since the recent session of the Rhode Island General assembly failed to pass any legislation that would have enabled individuals and small businesses to shop for health insurance (a key part of Obama’s health care reform package) many hope that Gov. Lincoln Chafee will Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniel’s lead and sign a health care exchange into existance via executive order.

Bracy’s statement is revealing:

It is tragic that a small group of determined pro-abortion officials is attempting an end-run around the General Assembly and around the Rhode Island Constitution in order to force Rhode Islanders to subsidize other people’s abortions under the guise of health-care reform.

This is a health care issue, but Bracy sees the issue as some sort of conspiracy. Bracy’s inane characterization of the process as a “small group of determined pro-abortion officials” operating “under the guise of health care reform” smacks of paranoia and delusion. The National Right to Life Committe promotes this paranoia on a national level, preventing any sort of rational debate on abortion. The movie they produced in 1984, The Silent Scream, has been criticized as being “riddled with scientific, medical, and legal inaccuracies as well as misleading statements and exaggerations,” which are really just nice words for “lies.”

The truth is that there is no compelling, secular reason to oppose a woman’s right to abortion. Groups such as RI Right to Life are rightwing religious fronts trying to force their views on the general public through misinformation and legal maneuvering. For instance, the entire thrust of their legal challenge revolves around “whether the governor has the authority to create the exchange… without the legislature’s approval” not around the fundamental question of a woman’s right to choose. They are willing to hold hostage any attempt to rework our healthcare system over the issue of abortion.

There is something out there known as the Establishment Clause, sometimes refered to as “separation of church and state.” This was put into the Constitution because religious beliefs and secualr government do not wok well together. The only case that can be made against safe, legal abortion is religious. Religion does not belong in government.

Abortion is a fundamental human right, and it needs to be protected.

Posted on

At the “Civil Rights Under Attack” Forum

The RI Mobilization Committee sponsored an interesting array of speakers Wednesday night at the Beneficent Church in downtown Providence centered around the theme of Civil Rights. First up was Iman Ikram Ul-Haq, from Masjid Al-islam mosque, North Smithfield, who talked about Islamophobia. The Iman made some interesting observations about the recent attacks in Norway and the rush to judgement by the media in identifying the attacker as a Muslim terrorist when in fact the man was a white Christian militant. The audience in attendance split during the question and answer session over the idea of free speech. Some felt that free speech includes the right not to be offended, but others maintained that offensive speech needs to be protected. The Iman was very courteous but personally I feel that he should have given more thought as to how to confront Islamophobia in a constructive way.

Next up was Onna Moniz-John, of the NAACP and the Urban League, a tireless advocate for the elimination of racial profiling. She related her ongoing struggle to deal with this issue legislatively, and her disappointment that a bill in the recent legislative session was scuttled at the behest of the police chiefs from the various RI communities. (One of many disappointing outcomes in the latest session.) Racial profiling exists, and needs to be dealt with, and Ms. Moniz-John offered us a real route towards dealing with this problem. She is a very affecting speaker.

Next up was Will Lambek of the Olneyville Neighborhood Association and Marlon Cifuentes, talking about Secure Communities, an Orwellian-named government program that puts people from south of the border on the fast track to deportation without any hint of due process. This program had been ostensibly instituted to deal with the very worst violent offenders, but in practice has been used as a means by which to deport anyone for any reason. Efforts to dissociate states from this program have been successful in some states, including New York, but Attorney General Peter Kilmartin and Governor Lincoln Chafee have both ignored requests to meet on this issue.

Last to speak was John Prince of DARE, who spoke about the Prison Industrial Complex, and his own dealings with it. After serving more than his fair share of time for his youthful indiscretions, Prince has become a tireless fighter for prison reform. I feel that the way a society treats its prisoners is the metric by which the society should be judged. On this count, the United States is not doing so well.

One of the eeriest things revealed this night is how all these various problems are related in such a way as to lead a person of color directly from his malfunctioning school directly into the Prison Industrial Complex. A person may be racially profiled, pulled over, arrested on some pretense, run through the court system, and wind up in jail, beginning a life cycle that may result in years of incarceration. It was pointed out by an audience member that the privatization of prisons and the continuance of the failed war on drugs has created a real profit motive to continue the failing schools and the building of more prisons.

Over all it was a very informative evening of refreshing and positive activism within our community. There is much to be done, and I came away feeling that though the situation is dire, it is far from hopeless if we continue to work on these issues.

Posted on

Thou Shalt Not Kill, Except…

Its been about two months since Governor Chafee signed the bill that posthumously pardoned John Gordon, the last man executed by the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.  During the hearing a great many people spoke eloquently about the terrible injustice of a man who (in hindsight) was so clearly innocent that he propelled the discontinuation of the Death Penalty in Rhode Island.  Some spoke of racism, of frenzied crowds, or proper legal procedure.  Others reiterated the spiritual and moral bankruptcy of putting people to death, made only more horrid when someone is likely innocent.

I wasn’t so eloquent.  I was blunt, and spoke about innocent people locked away right now, and how legal technicalities can bury evidence that would exonerate someone and I even named names.  But that was about “actual innocence.”  What about the Death Penalty in general?

Governor Chafee is currently battling the federal government, who want the option of killing a Rhode Island resident upon conviction and sentencing by a jury.  Chafee clearly is saying it doesn’t matter what the charge, there should be no death penalty.  What do others think?  Its long been said we live in the most Catholic state in the union, and the Church has long been one of the staunchest international opponents of the death penalty.  But I’m not convinced that tenets of a church doctrine too often filter down to the card carriers.  And it seems that one is more likely to get a “kill em” response from an average citizen in any situation where there is a public case on TV.

Is it time for a legislator to introduce a bill and have this public debate?  Would the Attorney General support the death penalty?  It seems he would.  Jason Pleau, according to his lawyers, was prepared to plead guilty in exchange for Life Without Parole.  Rather than accept that offer, A.G. Kilmartin dismissed the charges against him, leaving Pleau only open to federal prosecution and the possible death penalty.  Kilmartin clearly knows it is illegal for the state to kill someone as punishment for a crime, and his job is to uphold the laws of Rhode Island.

Personally, I say bring on the death penalty.  Under federal habeas corpus law section 2255, death penalty states receive more scrutiny of the case.  It makes it vastly more expensive (California is spending tens of millions just to maintain their death penalty cases), and innocent people will die from time to time (Texas seems to have clearly killed two in recent years), but more people will be exonerated (Louisiana and Illinois have each cleared dozens over the past decade).  Federal habeas section 2254, where there is no death penalty, allows for far more innocent people to rot away in prison.  They are accused of terrible crimes, will likely never be paroled, and generate far less public oversight because it takes “natural causes” to kill them rather than a needle.

With conflict within the government itself, this discussion needs to be more fleshed out.  Across the nation people hold this debate.  Some tend to simplify it as those who support killing are “tough,” and those who oppose it are “soft.”  Some believe the court system is infallible, and innocent people never get put to death.  Some are strong enough to hold to their beliefs even when placed in a challenging situation.  Does Chaffee support what Pleau did?  Of course not.  Does he think the man should be let go tomorrow?  Of course not.  But props to him for standing up for his beliefs; its pretty rare to see these days.


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387