Author: admin

Some Republican politicians
evidently believe that fighting the Culture War is a winning
electoral strategy. Consequently, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is
introducing a bill with co-sponsors Sens. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and
Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) that would ban abortions after 20 weeks of
pregnancy. From
Politico:

A recent Quinnipiac poll
found 55 percent of voters support the 20-week limit, one of a
slew of polls that have Republicans betting that late-term abortion
will unite the GOP in ways other issues don’t.

Of course, it’s not about elections.

Graham said in an interview that the legislation is less about
politics, more about conscience.

“The government has a legitimate interest in protecting the
unborn child over the 20-week period because they are capable of
feeling pain and the scientific evidence is overwhelming,” Graham
said. “When you do surgery on a 20-week baby, you provide
anesthesia because of pain.”

Back in July, I delved into the scientific question of “Do
Fetuses Feel Pain?” It turns out that most of the medical
groups that have considered the issue have concluded that it is
highly unlikely that fetuses can have a conscious experience of
pain before the third trimester of development. For example, I
noted a study by the United Kingdom’s Royal College of
Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) on the topic: 

The RCOG’s report,
Fetal Awareness: A Review of Research and Recommendations for
Practice was issued in March 2010. “In reviewing the
neuroanatomical and physiological evidence in the fetus,” it found,
“it was apparent that connections from the periphery [of the fetal
body] to the cortex are not intact before 24 weeks of gestation
and, as most neuroscientists believe that the cortex is necessary
for pain perception, it can be concluded that the fetus cannot
experience pain in any sense prior to this gestation.” In other
words, while fetuses can react to pain, at the 24-week stage of
brain development there is no subject present that is capable of
experiencing pain.

The RCOG report also found that even after 24 weeks of
development, fetuses abide “in a continuous sleep-like
unconsciousness or sedation” that “can suppress higher cortical
activation in the presence of intrusive external stimuli.” Since
fetuses cannot experience pain before 24 weeks, the RCOG recommends
against administering pain-relieving drugs when treating fetuses in
the womb except in cases when it’s necessary to immobilize
them.

In other words, the senators are justifiying their legislation
using statements that are very likely to be scienifically
wrong.

In any case, what percentage of abortions occur after 20 weeks
now? As I reported:

The latest report from the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention says that in 2009, 64 percent
of abortions were performed before 8 weeks’ gestation, and 91.7
percent before 13 weeks. Seven percent were performed between 14
and 20 weeks, and just 1.3 percent after 21 weeks. Out of 784,000
abortions, just over 10,000 were performed after 21 weeks’
gestation. There are not good data on why some women wait until
after 21 weeks before choosing abortion, but
two likely reasons come to mind: a prenatal discovery of
significant
fetal abnormalities, and embarrassed
adolescent denial.

Naturally, proponents of a woman’s right to choose are pushing
back. I received an emailed
statement from Nita Chaudhary, co-founder of UltraViolet, a
national women’s advocacy organization declaring:

“When politicians introduce these inhumane bans on abortions,
they are tying the hands of doctors who want to help couples going
through heartbreaking situations like serious fetal anomalies. Less
than 2% of abortions occur after 20 weeks, and many of them are
wanted pregnancies that are just too dangerous or unhealthy to
continue. Sen. Graham’s bill criminalizing women’s reproductive
choices after 20 weeks does not make women or our families safer or
healthier. We urge members of the Senate to reject this extreme
bill and stand up for the rights of American women.”

The Politico article concludes:

Democrats are more than willing to have the debate, seeing the
issue as an electoral loser for Republicans.

Even if the polls now show 55 percent support for banning
abortion after 20 weeks, I have every confidence that tone-deaf and
ham-fisted rhetoric by Republican pols in Congress will soon turn
this around.

The excellent Popehat blog
gets the specifics on the warrant that led to the anal rape and
torture of David Eckert in New Mexico, which I
blogged about yesterday.

You can read the specific language of the actual warrant at his
post, but here is his accurate summation of it:

The factors that allegedly justify police intrusion into David
Eckert’s anus are:

• That his hands were shaking and he avoided eye contact during a
  traffic stop;
• He refused to consent to a search of his person;
• He stood erect with his legs together;
• No drugs were found in his car or in a pat-down of him (police
  pat-downs for weapons often turn up drugs, which mysteriously feel
  like dangerous weapons when touched by police, or which are
  immediately identifiable as drugs when touched by police);
• A drug dog (with no information given about the dog’s training
  or qualifications or success rate) “alerted” to his car seat
  (though no drugs were found in his car); and
• An unidentified Hidalgo County K-9 officer asserted, without
  any specificity, that Eckert had previously hidden drugs in his
  anus.

That’s all.  It really comes down to three things: 
(1) subjective officer impressions that Eckert looked nervous, (2)
a dog alerting on his seat, and (3) an unnamed cop making an
unspecific claim that he had previously hidden drugs in his
anus. 

The first factor is smoke and mirrors.  It is increasingly
clear in America that a reasonable person should be fearful during
an encounter with police, who can generally shoot you (or
your dog)
with probable
impunity, and who, it appears, can arrange for you to be
systematically anally raped if the mood strikes them…..

The second factor — the dog alert — has its own problems, but at
any rate does not connect drugs to Mr. Eckert’s anus. The third
factor is effectively an anonymous tip. The affiant, Officer
Chavez, does not identify the officer, explain the basis for the
officer’s knowledge, or offer any details about the alleged
instances in which drugs were found in Mr. Eckert’s
anus. Anonymous
tips must be corroborated to support probable cause, and this
effectively anonymous tip isn’t.

Mr. Eckert asserts that drugs were never found in his anus by
any law enforcement agency. If true, that suggests someone lied –
the K-9 officer who allegedly told Officer Chavez that, or Officer
Chavez…..In deciding whether false information was provided to
the court to secure the warrant, consider this: the Hidalgo County
K-9 officer’s report on the incident here doesn’t
mention any such knowledge about Eckert and doesn’t say
he conveyed any such information to Officer Chavez. Do you think
that would have made it into his report if he had?

Jacob Sullum blogged yesterday about the
mysterious powers of dogs to justify anal rape.

Last week I
noted that President Obama was trying to retroactively revise
his promise that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
would allow people who were happy with their health plans to keep
them. That guarantee, he explained, applies only to policies that
have not changed in any way since the law took effect. The problem,
of course, is that Obama never mentioned that caveat until now. I
wondered whether reporters would nevertheless treat this
explanation as something other than a
bald-faced lie. Judging from a new
ProPublica story, the answer appears to be yes. In an article
that otherwise admirably seeks to explain the actual consequences
of Obamacare, including the costs it imposes on some for the
benefit of others, Charles Ornstein says this:

First, President Obama’s now-infamous pledge that those who
liked their health plan could keep it applied only to people
enrolled in those plans as of the day the Affordable Care Act was
signed into law, March 23, 2010. That became known as the
“grandfather” clause.

That phrasing makes it seem like Ornstein accepts Obama’s
revisionism—which is odd, because Ornstein later notes that
“Politifact has labeled the pledge ‘pants
on fire.'” Actually, the analysis to which Ornstein links deals
not with Obama’s promise itself but with his attempt to amend it
after the fact. Here is PolitiFact’s conclusion:

According to Obama, “What we said was you can keep [your plan]
if it hasn’t changed since the law passed.”

But we found at least 37
times since Obama’s inauguration where he or a top
administration official made a variation of the pledge that if you
like your plan, you can keep it, and we never found an instance in
which he offered the caveat that it only applies to plans that
hadn’t changed after the law’s passage. And seven of those 37 cases
came after the release of the HHS regulations that defined the
“grandfathering” process, when the impact would be clear.

So yes, it’s true: Obama is a liar. Reporters should not let a
lingering attachment to “false
balance” blind them (or their readers) to that fact.

Last week I
noted that President Obama was trying to retroactively revise
his promise that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
would allow people who were happy with their health plans to keep
them. That guarantee, he explained, applies only to policies that
have not changed in any way since the law took effect. The problem,
of course, is that Obama never mentioned that caveat until now. I
wondered whether reporters would nevertheless treat this
explanation as something other than a
bald-faced lie. Judging from a new
ProPublica story, the answer appears to be yes. In an article
that otherwise admirably seeks to explain the actual consequences
of Obamacare, including the costs it imposes on some for the
benefit of others, Charles Ornstein says this:

First, President Obama’s now-infamous pledge that those who
liked their health plan could keep it applied only to people
enrolled in those plans as of the day the Affordable Care Act was
signed into law, March 23, 2010. That became known as the
“grandfather” clause.

That phrasing makes it seem like Ornstein accepts Obama’s
revisionism—which is odd, because Ornstein later notes that
“Politifact has labeled the pledge ‘pants
on fire.'” Actually, the analysis to which Ornstein links deals
not with Obama’s promise itself but with his attempt to amend it
after the fact. Here is PolitiFact’s conclusion:

According to Obama, “What we said was you can keep [your plan]
if it hasn’t changed since the law passed.”

But we found at least 37
times since Obama’s inauguration where he or a top
administration official made a variation of the pledge that if you
like your plan, you can keep it, and we never found an instance in
which he offered the caveat that it only applies to plans that
hadn’t changed after the law’s passage. And seven of those 37 cases
came after the release of the HHS regulations that defined the
“grandfathering” process, when the impact would be clear.

So yes, it’s true: Obama is a liar. Reporters should not let a
lingering attachment to “false
balance” blind them (or their readers) to that fact.

Common Core, the controversial
set of new national education standards touted by the by the
National Governors Association and the Chief Council of State
School Officers, with
significant federal encouragement, is in the news again. This
time, it’s being called out for promoting politicized lessons
spoon-fed to the captive audience of kiddies in the public schools.
But this is an unfair charge. Common Core
has a lot wrong with it, high-pressure included, but it doesn’t
specify lesson-plans or politicized content. The real problem is
the much older one of schools controlled by government
officials.

The specific complaint this time is about fifth-grade English
worksheets which ask students to edit sentences including:
“Government officials’ commands must be obeyed by all” and “An
individual’s wants are less important than the nation’s
well-being.” The sentences are a small part of a
larger worksheet (PDF) called “Hold the Flag High” linked to
the Civil War.

But what a part. Way to go, oh bait-the-critics educators! You
walked into it with those loaded sentences. Even teachers are
debating
the propriety of this stuff now.

But Pearson
Education tells Fox
News that this worksheet was copyrighted in 2007 and has been
in use ever since—predating Common Core. And Pearson is far from
the only curriculum vendor out there. Besides, controversy over
politicized education started far before Common Core came along to
cause a fuss.

In 1996, New York State mandated the teaching of the Irish
potato famine as an
act of genocide by the British government against the Irish, no
other interpretations allowed. The Tucson Unified School District
in Arizona has managed a
heated, years-long battle over race-infused “culturally relevant”
classes without any input from Common Core. Control over
textbooks has long been a political prize in Texas, with
conservatives in recent years sculpting the lessons delivered
to students there and, given the size of the market and the cost of
printing multiple editions, elsewhere. And the use of liberal
pundit Paul Krugman’s
Keynes-centric economics texts in high schools has raised a few
hackles, too.

The problem isn’t Common Core, it’s that government officials
control so many schools, even in the age of expanding choice, and
schools are a handy delivery system for pet ideas to (presumably)
receptive young minds.

There’s plenty to object to about Common Core. But dumping the
new standards won’t solve the problem of politicized curriculum so
long as government officials control schools and get to force-feed
their messages to the children of people with very different
ideas.