Lately, there has been a dangerous trend in this country to limit free speech, with calls for representatives to resign and administrative officials to be removed from office. The latest example of this is occurring in Virginia after Republican Delegate Bob Marshall made a statement against the state funding of Planned Parenthood. The transcript of his discussion had religious connotations that some have called ‘hate speech’ and there are calls for his resignation.
Mr. Bob Marshall was quoted as saying that the “number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion who have handicaps has increased dramatically…Because when you abort the first-born of any, Nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children. In the Old Testament, the first-born of every being, animal and man, was dedicated to the Lord. There’s a special punishment Christians would suggest, and with the knowledge they have from faith has been verified by a study by the Virginia Commonwealth University. First abortions of the first pregnancy are much more damaging to the woman than latter abortions.”
Mr. Marshall is now under fire from his own political party, with Virginia’s Republican Governor Bob McDonnell taking a shot at the delegate, calling the delegate’s words offensive and wrong. For a political party that beats its chest about supporting the Constitution, there seems to be a sudden lack of consideration for the 1st Amendment and Mr. Marshall’s right to free speech. The delegate identifies himself as a devout Catholic, and so his faith is going to shape his thoughts and beliefs. There are plenty of analogies in the bible of God punishing individuals and civilizations for not following the bible’s guidelines. In addition to his religious views, Mr. Marshall also cites scientific data from Virginia Commonwealth University which has influenced his opinion. For Delegate Marshall to change his belief and thoughts on abortion when it comes to his personal studies and experiences is akin to asking him to toss away a portion of his own self-identity. This is why freedom of speech is so important, because it is connected to individualism as well as healthy political dialogue. Instead of lampooning free speech, Governor McDonnell would have done us a better service by quoting Voltaire as I would have done, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”
If Delegate Bob Marshall attempts to force his morality onto the population through legislation then it would be time for us to speak out against him. However, his fight against the state funding of Planned Parenthood should be supported. The government forces taxpayers to participate in government-sponsored population control. Taxpayers can decide to help change the laws that use their money to fund programs they are morally against, accept this state of affairs, or stop paying taxes and go to jail. Legislative change is the only logical recourse to those who wish to object the usage of their taxpaying dollars.
Finally, I’m more concerned with a politician’s legislative record than his recorded transcripts. Recently, Delegate Bob Marshall pushed a bill to support states rights in regards to a takeover of health care by the Federal government. This bill is called HB-10, the Virginia Healthcare Freedom Act (VHFA), and it states that "No law shall restrict an individual’s natural right and power of contract liberty to choose private health care systems or private plans."
Instead of taking his time to lampoon supporters of my natural rights, I’d rather see Governor McDonnell support Delegate Bob Marshall's right to free speech and HB-10 legislation. While he is at it, the governor could also push his party hard to pass Democratic delegate Ward Armstrong's HB-651 and HB-652, which gives the individual greater protection from eminent domain. Our representatives must aggressively restore individual rights, rather than actively denying them.
James Quigley
- Chair of the Peninsula Libertarian Party (vplp.org)
- Libertarian collecting petitions to appear on the ballot for the 3rd Congressional District
of Virginia (jamesquigley4congress.com; jamesquigley4congress@gmail.com)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
test
ReplyDeleteMr. Quigley,
ReplyDeleteWhen a poor, struggling single woman finds herself in the position of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy, it is entirely morally defensible for a society that calls itself compassionate to offer assistance, financial and otherwise, to help those in need. To those who oppose any taxpayer money going to support abortion, I respect their moral point of view. However, to equate this kind of support for those in need with "government-sponsored population control" is heartless, absurd, and factually wrong.
It does happen to be a fact that the numbers of humans on earth is beyond the planet's ability to sustain, and our population will ultimately be forced to decline, whether voluntarily or involuntarily. However, this fact has absolutely nothing to do with abortion.
Shawn
Prince William County, VA
samoler@aol.com
Mr. Quigley,
ReplyDeleteLike many others who oppose the federal government's proposal for health care reform, you have endorsed the description of it as a "government takover". As you and all like-minded folks know, Medicare and the VA are government-controlled health care systems. Libertarians often pride themselves on their claimed intellectual honesty and ideological consistency. As a candidate for office, do you have the intellectual consistency to publicly take your philosophy to it's only logical conclusion? If the proposals in Congress are a "government takeover", then you MUST be in favor of abolishing Medicare and the VA. Otherwise, you are ideologically inconsistent.
Shawn
Shawn, you say:
ReplyDelete"When a poor, struggling single woman finds herself in the position of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy, it is entirely morally defensible for a society that calls itself compassionate to offer assistance, financial and otherwise, to help those in need."
So, aborting a human being is merely an unwanted consequence? You almost speak as though the baby is elective surgery. Let's say I accept your premise, what about breast enhancements for the poor? Unwanted nose? How about a government funded nose job? Where is your limit for the taxes of good Americans trying to feed THEIR families being taken from them to pay for elective surgical procedures?
Some equate abortion with murder. Some see it as elective surgery, some see it as not being a protected life until a certain point in pregnancy. if you do appreciate the moral perspective you acknowledge, then you you can understand that in their view, you are asking them to pay for somebody's murder. Even if you are hard core pro-choice, how did you arrive at the point where you think money should be taken from good Americans to pay for such a thing? Private organizations not funded by the government can already help in the way you suggest. That can be done without staining the tax dollars or the conscience of those morally opposed to abortion.
To most that are pro-choice, this idea of government funding is obscene let alone those that are pro-life.
As far as the "population control" statement goes, I'm not sure that wasn't a play on words. You certainly are controlling the population in a manner of speaking when you have an abortion.
Further, you state there is no correlation between funded abortion and population control, yet you are the one listing supporting arguments for something that you again claim has no connection. Maybe you protest too much?
"If the proposals in Congress are a "government takeover", then you MUST be in favor of abolishing Medicare and the VA. Otherwise, you are ideologically inconsistent." -Shawn
ReplyDeleteFirstly, you don't get to say what any candidate MUST do. Secondly your analogy is horribly flawed. You compare apples to oranges.
I can't speak for James, only myself, but medicare is flawed and will eventually do great economic harm if not addressed. It is government run, go figure,however it covers US private citizens(unlike the VA) and covers a select group(unlike Obama/Pelosi/Reid care, and is nowhere near the socialized medicine proposed by Dems no matter how flawed medicare may be. The two don't compare.
How in the world you compare that horrible legislation masquerading as healthcare reform to the VA is beyond me. One, WE OWE our military that for services rendered!! Actually we owe better than that, but that is another topic altogether. Further, they are by definition government employees and they sign away many of their rights when they signed that contract with the government. I'm perfectly fine with the government covering health care for their employees as companies do every day. Taking care of your employees is not government take over.
What next, you're going to tell us how Global Warming is real and how the American Devil caused it? Going to extoll the virtues of Cap & Trade now?
Britt,
ReplyDeleteYour comments on abortion are thought-provoking and well taken. I don't know if I would characterize abortion as elective surgery or not. However, I certainly see it as a more serious health/life crisis than small breasts or an ugly nose, and carrying considerably more psychological and financial ramifications. As you suggest, I am indeed not entirely comfortable with asking those who consider abortion murder to help pay for it, even though I don't see it as murder. I'm glad I don't have to cast such votes. On the population issue, abortion is indeed by definition an act of population control. What I was saying is that I don't accept James' implication that population control is the motivation for abortion or, even more absurdly, that government subsidy for abortion is motivated by a population control agenda.
On the VA I respond to both your arguments as follows. I have as much respect and admiration for our military as anyone, but I'm not persuaded that military service makes one more deserving of guaranteed access to affordable health care than anyone else. How can one citizen be inherently more valuable than another? To pick and choose in that way is not consistent with basic american values, in my opinion. Second, the defense of an exclusively employer-based health care system sounds good in theory, but in my view it could only be socially just if employment were always 100%, which it never is. The rest of the developed world has long since concluded that guaranteed access to affordable health care is a basic right for all citizens. One can disagree with that premise, but there is no doubt that their health care systems based on that premise work better than ours.
Britt,
ReplyDeleteJames' piece regarding Delegate Marshall (my representative) had nothing to do with global warming. Since you brought it up, however, I will say that it is incomprehensible to me how anyone with any understanding of objective science and basic observable data could seriously believe that global warming is not happening. I will definitely not extoll the virtues of cap and trade, as Europe's experience with it clearly shows that it doesn't work very well. It is too easily abused and outflanked by status-quo-motivated industry. Fortunately, Congress is slowly beginning to figure that out. If you are interested in the issue, the cap-and-dividend structure is a far better and simpler plan with a much higher likelihood of success. It also makes more sense from the point of view of the consumer and therefore likely to be an easier sell to the people.
Shawn, I'm glad that you appreciate the moral difficulties for abortion and at least feel some discomfort in confiscating tax dollars to pay for it. Out of curiosity, do you see late term abortions as potentially murder? First tri-mester, I don't, the thought of 3rd trimester is revolting and murder. I do make some exceptions where there is REAL risk to the mother.
ReplyDeleteAs to population control, we both know while not the norm, some DO want to subsidize abortion for population control. Every segment has its finge elements.
-VA I don't see any life as more important. I do discriminate on occupation. I do believe in fair compensation as part of that appreciation for risking the ultimate sacrifice for OUR protection. They would earn employer healthcare like everyone else. As to the poor, there is still direct charity, hospitals offering free care to those in need and tools such as medical savings accounts.
With medical savings accounts it should be set up so, there are tax advantages to contribute to your own account(as employers get) and also to donate to someone else's account. Grandparents would likely jump to donate to the accounts of their precious grandchildren that feel like they are immortal. Even today, immediate emergency care isn't denied to anyone.
Britt,
ReplyDeleteI find the idea of optional 3rd trimester abortion unsettling as well as objectionable simply because, except in the case of medical complications that threaten the life of the mother, it should never be necessary. 3-6 six months is more than enough time for a woman to make her final decision. Although calling it murder may sound reasonable from an emotional, moral standpoint, it opens a legal can of worms because in our system that almost automatically confers equal legal standing to the fetus. At that point you are faced with a very awkward question: exactly when does the fetus' legal standing begin? And what about the case where late-term medical complications will almost certainly result in the death of the mother if the pregnancy is not aborted? If the fetus has equal standing with the mother, then we are almost legally forced to foolishly continue the pregnancy to birth despite the likelihood that it will result in the loss of 2 lives instead of 1.
We will just have to agree to disagree about the idea of healthcare access and affordability based on occupation. I'm not persuaded that it is a rational or morally defensible basis.
As T.R. Reid (an expert on healthcare systems around the world) notes, charity and ER rooms are not a substitute for comprehensive health care because they rarely have adequate preventive and follow-up components. They usually serve only as a place to go when a health condition deteriorates to a point that it might not have gotten to if the individual had had access to regular preventive doctor visits.
Shawn