Drug Use: When to Wage War and When to Regulate

In a recent story done by the AP, New Zealand is looking to regulate the market on designer drugs with the goal to make them safer for those using them. See the article here:http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_NEW_ZEALAND_LEGAL_HIGHS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-08-02-03-43-32 Now, the new law doesn't legalize marijuana or cocaine; rather the intent is to force designer drug makers - which was illegal prior to the law - to adhere to the same regulatory body that pharmaceutical companies do.

Let's face it, the "War on Drugs" has been a global failure. At the same time the drug trade has illustrated to perfection the lucrative money one can make in a free market; granted this free market is the Black Market. The violence witnessed in Mexico and along the US/Mexico border is over the illegal trafficking of drugs. Fields of poppy litter the landscape of the Middle East all in an effort to raise funds for the warlords in the region.

While I am not a drug user nor do I promote the use of abortion as a method of birth control, I recognize the limitations and markets government makes when waging war or making something illegal. Early in the 20th Century America saw the rise of the Mafia mainly due to the prohibiting of alcohol. Some have argued that the side effects and social ills of alcohol differ little to illicit drugs. Not to mention that prescription drugs are a hot commodity and have the same harmful impact if misused as illicit drugs.

The sky will not fall, drug use will not rise dramatically and chaos will not reign in the streets if countries adopt a more regulated approach to illicit drugs. Now, I am typically a proponent to government intervention into the Free Market or our private lives. When the drug trade fills to coffers of those that deem us harm and if regulation can bring about a safer product  then I am open to the notion of government intervention. Often times people confuse the concept of limited government as no government and that is simply not a honest assessment of the thought process.

New Zealand is onto something here and I hope our government will take notice. We have already seen a few states legalize recreational use of marijuana with little public disruption. Perhaps it is time to take a deeper look into all drug use.

A women's right to privacy

In the aftermath of the Affordable Care Act debate a lot was made of the objection by Catholics, and other  Christian groups, as to being forced to provide contraception in their health insurance coverage despite their moral objection. The moral objection by the Catholics was painted by the media and Liberals as a war on women. Recently, North Dakota enacted some of the most restrictive abortion rules in the nation by making it illegal once a heartbeat is detected.

Yesterday the United States Food and Drug Administration announced that Plan B One-Step morning after pill can be sold over the counter to girls as young as 15 years of age. While the morning after pills does nothing to stop a pregnancy, it must be taken with days after unprotected sex takes place. Whether or not any woman decides to use contraception, have an abortion or kill a baby from a botched abortion is a choice that should be left to that female regardless of my own belief. Although I'd argue that if that child is born of a botched abortion, or induced as Dr. Gosnell does to abort fetuses, has the same right's of a child of 1 year or 16 years of age.

But I digress. In the case of Catholic institutions, anyone employed there ought to know and respect the moral objection while knowing full well that contraception and abortion coverage will not be part of the health care package. At the same time no law of the land, even a tax, should require the Catholic institutional to violate their moral objection. But if the Catholics moral objection and restricting the time frame of when a woman may abort a fetus are considered violations of a women's privacy then why do trample on their privacy in other ways?

If a woman is really in control of her own body and have the right to privacy of that then why can't a woman use her body to earn a living or enjoy any vice that she wishes?

Sunday News that isn't being reported

It is Sunday morning and instead of sleeping in I was up earlier to read the various media outlets I do every Sunday. Nearly every site I read had articles about North Korea, Gun Control debate, Budget debate, Tiger Woods debacle at the Masters, and Governor Dayton's Budget mess. Then I came across an article on slate.com - http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/04/12/kermit_gosnell_the_alleged_mass_murderer_and_the_bored_media.html

I had heard Sue Jeffers discuss Dr. Kermit Gosnell on the Saturday Round Table show she has as I took my oldest son to Trap shooting practice - believe it or not but it is a new sport for his school this year. North Dakota Governor recently signed legislation that enacted some of the most restricted laws in regards to abortion. That, and other states looking to do the same thing, have received plenty of media coverage.

When it comes to abortion I don't view abortion as the responsible thing to do but recognize that it is a personal decision that ought to be left to the individuals and their doctor. The only roll the government is to have is to ensure the procedure is safe. Granted it is only safe for the mother as the child will not be safe in the end. But I digress.

Dr. Gosnell is being charged with murder for the method used to complete the abortion process. Here is the grand jury report: http://www.phila.gov/districtattorney/pdfs/grandjurywomensmedical.pdf An Epic Failure exists here on several levels.

The first level of failure starts with the Pennsylvania Department of Health. The clinic run by Dr. Gosnell is Women's Medical Society that started by in 1979. Per the grand jury findings, Governor Ridge decided to stop auditing and inspecting abortion clinics in Pennsylvania because it would be "putting a barrier up to women" who seek abortions. Really?!?! Even after several reports of violations by Dr. Gosnell including one that he performed an abortion on a 14 year old female that was in her 30th week the Pennsylvania Department of Health did nothing.

Dr. Gosnell method of abortion for those with child beyond the 20th week is to induce labor and when the child is born - alive - is to "snip" the spinal cord. Ironically the way the Department of Health in Pennsylvania brought the murder charges to Dr. Gosnell is by their raid to look for prescription drug misuse by the clinic.

The second level of failure is various watch dog groups that look for violations of civil rights. Nothing from NAACP, ACLU, NOW or any other watch dog group over the disparate conditions that white clients had versus minority clients of Dr. Gosnell. During the raid it was noted that the clinic was in horrible condition - stench of urine in the air, non-sterile equipment, blood soaked linens, etc. Despite the horrible conditions, Dr. Gosnell did attempt to give white clients better rooms in the clinic because Dr. Gosnell believed they be "more" apt to report the clinic than minority clients.

The final level of failure is the media. Very little investigative journalism has taken place and likely little will. Reporting on a doctor that performs abortion in conditions that Dr. Gosnell did and as late in the term has he did would not promote the Liberal ideal of abortions or the women's right to choose. As troubling as this sounds, I am all for the women's right to choose but women need to assured the choice is not going to kill them too.

Perhaps going forward more coverage of this issue will take place but I am not holding my breath. We will be more focused on gun control that will not stop the needless deaths that took place at Sandy Hook or any other place.

Women are being duped yet again

President Obama, as the drive by media outlets put it, "caved" to religious pressure in regards to birth control, abortion, sterilization and birth control inducing abortion methods this past week by making a compromise. The compromise that President Obama offered was to exempt religious institutions and faith based organizations from having to pay for these services; instead the services will have to offered by insurance companies at "no additional cost to the employee or hassle." Does President Obama believe that the American citizenry is stupid?

All President Obama did was shift the mandate from one group to another. The original mandate violates the 1st Amendment while the second mandate also violates the Constitution. Right now insurance is not sold across state lines thus the Federal Government cannot regulate it. Regulation is left up to the States. That being said certain aspect of insurance law has crept in and States have lost certain rights because of it. Namely via Medicare and Medicaid. When will Americans wake up and realize that more and more of our freedoms are being stripped away by those in Washington D.C.

We can start earlier but here is a short list of things:

1. Patriot Act - wiretapping
2. TARP - Temporarily nationalized the banks
3. TARP II - Temporarily nationalized GM and Chrysler
4. Health Care Act - Individual Mandate
5. Fifth Amendment - Assassination of America citizen tied to Al Qaeda
6. Health Care Act - Mandate of birth control for free

I know I am missing a couple. Our government has been working to erode our freedoms. Where is the outrage? I forgot we cannot express outrage now because one may interpret that as attacking someone based on the undercurrent of race.

Archbishop Dolan wrote, ""We note that today's proposal continues to involve needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions, and to threaten government coercion of religious people and groups to violate their most deeply held convictions....The only complete solution to this religious liberty problem is... to rescind the mandate of these objectionable services" in response to the recent changes. That is just the half of it. Take the blatant disregard for the US Constitution and combine it with this comment: "Reducing unintended pregnancies is a well-established public health goal. They are associated with a variety of health issues for both mother and child from maternal depression to birth defects. There are also economic consequences, particularly for teen mothers who are less likely to graduate from high school" states US Department of Health and Human Services.

If the goal is to truly reduce unintended pregnancies, albeit no method is 100% unless one abstains, ask yourself a few questions:

1. Will the family unit be mandated sterilization after a certain family size is reached?
2. If I am on welfare - will by welfare distribution be effected? or Will I have forced to be sterilized?

Women groups see this as freedom and liberation. It is a ruse. The fight for free contraception is to pacify women and lull you into thinking that power is being given. Once the government is able to prove a legit health concern over the number of babies you produce they will mandate it. When will people wake up and see that Government is not the answer to all. The role of government is for the basic protection of our rights set up in the US Constitution and the power there in. Not to be all for all.

The 1st Amendment under assault by Obama Administration

White House spokesman Jay Carney also sought to diffuse criticism from Church leaders, telling reporters later on Tuesday that the administration would work with religious organizations "to see if the implementation of the policy can be done in a way that allays some of those concerns." (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/white-house-open-compromise-over-contraception-adviser-152243708.html)

This comment by Mr. Carney is alarming. It is bad enough that the Obama Administration has trampled upon the Constitution by appointing recess appointments when the Senate was not in recess. The controversy with abortion, contraception and sterilization is not the first issue with ObamaCare. What is the next Amendment or freedom "hope and change" is going to take away?

Catholic League Poised To Go To War With Obama Over Mandatory Birth Control Payments « CBS New York

Catholic League Poised To Go To War With Obama Over Mandatory Birth Control Payments « CBS New York


The 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." but that is exactly what President Obama did when he signed into law the Health Care Act. As Rep. Pelosi so eloquently stated during the passage of the bill,"we need to pass it to understand whats in it". Perhaps people should have demanded more from our elected officials when debating this bill; makes one wonder what else is in the bill that restricts our freedoms. But I digress.

The Health Care Act is going to require all religious institutions to provide health insurance that includes provisions to pay for birth control pills, abortion-inducing drugs, and sterilization. Catholics and Imam's are up in arms over this intrusion into their free exercise of their religions. "The Catholic hierarchy seems to be playing a cynical game of chicken and they don’t seem to care that the health and well being of millions of American woman are what’s at stake here,” National Abortion Rights Action League President Andrea Miller said. Sorry Andrea the Catholic hierarchy is not playing chicken; rather they are protecting their rights. If employees of these groups want to obtain insurance with these provisions then they can either find other employment or buy supplements on the secondary market.

Troubling part of this conversation is that far to many will get bogged down into abortion issue and ignore the blatant violation of the 1st Amendment. It is time that we demand more of our government by restricting their powers to the powers explicitly stated in the Constitution and regulate all other powers to the States to decide. Today it's health care tomorrow it will be something else. Since the broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause we have steadily seen State rights and Rights of citizens eroded and Obamacare is just another step in that direction.

GOP - Small Government, right?

Yesterday the Star Tribune reported that the Minnesota State Legislature is debating a bill that would ban all abortions after 20 weeks unless the health of the mother is in danger. My first thought when reading the article was, "Didn't people vote in GOP candidates to reduce the size and scope of government?". I struggle with the topic of abortion because my unscientific view is that the decision should be between the female (and her support staff) and her doctor. Government should not dictate if abortion is legal or illegal.

That being said, taxpayer dollars should not be used to pay for abortions or anything that related to abortions. Why should the Government be involved in abortion decisions?

Abortions double edge sword

It's election Tuesday in America and while many of us will not be going to the polls several bell weather races are taking place. That is not what I am going to blog about today; rather I am going to take on a more controversial topic that is taking place locally. Last week Dameon Gatson was found guilty by jury in his participation of a murder-for-hire plot against the woman who carried his unborn baby. Shyloe Linde was six month pregnant when the attack took place and gave birth the day after the attack. According to the Star Tribune article Jury Convicts in murder-for-hire plot on October 31, 2009 the prosecution planned to "introduce transcripts of interviews with Petersen in which he said Gatson hired him to punch Linde because Gatson did not want to pay child support."

The transcript is where I want to focus; specifically the issue of child support and the role of the man in the decision of having a baby. When two people decide to engage in the act of intercourse a potential outcome is a child. According to The New York Times, Out-of-Wedlock Birthrates Are Soaring, U.S. Reports, stated that "unmarried mothers gave birth to 4 out of every 10 babies born in the United Sates." NPR reported, Abortion Decline, Despite More Liberal Laws Worldwide, that "the number of abortions worldwide dropped to about 42 million in 2003 from little over 45 million in 1995." Now, I am not one that believes that abortion is an option when two people engage in the act of intercourse at their own free will. At the same token, I do not believe I have the right to impose my belief on abortion onto others and they ought to have the right to decide what is best for them.

That being said, the decision of having an abortion is a weighty one and should not be made in haste. The United States Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade, stipulated that a woman's has a right to terminate a pregnancy. Unfortunately the suit left one aspect of the equation out of the picture; the father. Now, I do not condone the act of Dameon Gatson in hiring a person to inflict harm upon another but I do understand his frustration in being required to pay child support for a child he does not want. Nor does Gatson have a say in the outcome of the act he engaged in with Linde that created the child.

As I said before, if it were me the concept of an abortion is not an option. A double standard is created by unwanted pregnancies. The double standard is that the decision to have or not to have the child is ultimately the females alone. The female can decided to terminate the birth regardless of the wishes of the willing partner. Let's set aside the case above that brings us here as this conversation moves forward. The father of an unwanted pregnancy has no recourse if the female decides to terminate while is expected to support the child if the female has the child. Why is this? Why is the father's voice silent in the decision?

The father is required to support the unwanted child by law yet the father holds no legal standing on the decision to abort. Why cannot the father of the pregnancy not have the same luxury to abort or not to abort the child? For instance, why cannot the father say that he'd like to have the child regardless of how the mother feels? Or why cannot the father be exempt for child support if the mother has the child and he "bows out"?

Abortion: Governments only role is to regulate

Over the weekend President Obama gave commencement at Notre Dame amidst controversy. Many thought the Catholic Church ought not to allow the President to speak or give him an honorary degree. The controvesary arises from President Obama’s and Catholic Church doctrine being in opposition on the stance of abortion. While I understand Notre Dame hierarchy’s decision to have the President of the United States to speak at commencement; I hold reservation to giving him an honorary degree.

Arizona State University decided to not bestow President Obama with an honorary degree due to “not having accomplished anything of importance” which President Obama mocked during his commencement speech at Notre Dame. Now, I don’t exactly agree with Arizona State’s decision, I would support the Notre Dame’s board if they had not given an honorary degree. Notre Dame has a significant moral issue with President Obama on the stance of abortion.

Opponents of the honorary degree suggest that Notre Dame is giving credence to President Obama’s stance on abortion. This I agree with. Where I differ with the opponents of President Obama speaking at commencement is having him speak. President Obama’s appearance does not translate into Notre Dame accepting his position on abortion; rather it displays a willingness to have open dialogue on the topic. Last year St. Thomas did not want Bishop Desmond Tutu because of his view only later to reconsider.

Abortion is an issue that stokes strong emotions. I applaud President Obama for acknowledging that two sides of the issue exist and his plea to for all involved looking for “common ground”. Abortion is a personal choice and is something a man cannot have. The Government should not be involved in the decision of whether one has an abortion or not. Where Governments role is to ensure the standard of care is at an acceptable level similar to a heart transplant.

Since a man cannot have the abortion, it really comes down on the shoulders of the woman. The woman will bear the emotion and physical scars of the abortion for her lifetime. Some women are capable of handling multiple abortions while others simple cannot. The issue of whether abortion is legal or not is mute. Parents and communities do have the responsibility of educating the youth on the potential outcome of sexual activity.

Simply put, abortion is not something the Government is to prevent from happening; rather abortion is something the Government is allowed to regulate. The regulation of abortion as to the standards of the procedure and how late into the pregnancy is the extent the Government ought to be involved in the issue. Personally, I do not believe in abortion because of my motto of “If you play the game, you live with the consequences.” Now, I will not ask my Government to stop a woman to having an abortion nor will I shun her for doing so.

Let’s allow Government to regulate it, leave it legal, and increase the education of the youth to all aspects of sexual activity. Keeping the knowledge from the youth only tempts them further. Information on potential outcomes of sexual activity will not increase sexual activity among the youth. It will enlighten people to their actions have consequences and it is time to be responsible for oneself.