Part of this commentary is from a previous Facebook post of mine.
The Ohio Senate passed a revision bill of Ohio's state child abuse and neglect laws on Tuesday. In it, Senate Republicans - flexing a facade of moxie they
believe Donald Trump has instilled in them with his election win - slipped in an amendment, the "heartbeat bill," banning abortion once the fetal heartbeat
is present, which typically occurs around six weeks. Naturally, pro-choice advocates have decried this move, while pro-birthers are very excited to move the
needle more in their desired direction.
If you noticed that I used the term "pro-birth," instead of "pro-life," that's because I don't believe in the term "pro-life." It's not real. Here are some
stats for you, compiled from the most recent Pew Research and Gallup poll results I could find:
59% - Republicans who think abortion should be illegal in all or most cases. That number increases to 68% for the conservative end of the GOP,
compared to moderates' 41%. Democrat support is 28%.
While 63% overall support gay adoption, Republican support is only 26%. Democrat support is 87%.
67% - Republicans who supported the most recent cuts to the food stamp program, SNAP. Democrat support was 28%.
72% - Republicans who favor the death penalty, including 69% of white evangelicals. Democrat support is 34%.
So what does this mean? Basically, the largest block who would call themselves "pro-life" seem to not be too concerned with what happens after the baby is
born, so long as it is forced to be born - after that, the baby is someone else's problem. They might be okay with the baby being adopted, but they strongly
support limiting the adoptive parent pool by keeping gays out of the mix, regardless of the effect of keeping more children unadopted for much longer.
In the event the parent has the baby, but is too poor to care for it, they strongly favor cutting or eliminating assistance that is available to the
parent, in the form of welfare and SNAP, by extension making the child's life much harder - but then, that is someone else's problem. And if that baby grows
up to kill someone, they are overwhelmingly in favor of killing it.
Hence, the term "pro-life" is a bit of a misnomer. Anyone who is in favor of the things listed above are "pro-birth," not "pro-life." Very little of what
the "pro-lifers" advocate would fall under the heading of "pro-life." They, of course, don't see it that way as they bang on podiums and harass women at
clinics in a manner that borders on the criminal (that's usually how they do it too, doing everything they can right up to the illegal line). And they always
do it with the encouragement of politicians, who will never dirty their hands or go to jail. They let all of their supporters put themselves at risk with the
dirty work, while they simply try to bend or break the law in the chamber.
And this is where we come back to the "heartbeat bill" in Ohio. They know the bill is unconstitutional, it's why they've held off on voting on it for the past
several years. But Trump is President now. Here is Ohio State Senate President Keith Faber:
So to Keith Faber, Donald Trump winning the presidency means that he will put a conservative justice in the vacant seat on the Supreme Court, so the chance of
his bill surviving is much better. It apparently does not matter that the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals already declared "heartbeat bills" unconstitutional,
after Arkansas and North Dakota previously passed the same bills. The U.S. Supreme Court refuse to grant a writ of certiorari in January of this year.
That is an important thing to note, because a writ requires the "rule of four," whereby four of the nine justices have to approve of a writ to issue it. This means
that The Supremes didn't have four justices in support of reviewing the 8th Circuit Appeals Court ruling declaring the "heartbeat" bill unconstitutional - and
that was with Antonin Scalia still alive on the bench at the time.
Trump can appoint a conservative justice to the court, but it still only brings the count to 5-4 in favor of Roe v. Wade. Where it starts to get sticky is if any
of the three oldest justices - Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Anthony Kennedy - pass away or retire during Trump's term. Right now, Kennedy is the swing
vote. If he is no longer there, the only remaining sometimes swing is John Roberts. I think we all were more than a little surprised at Roberts' decision
during the Obamacare case, not only supporting the non-existent Individual Mandate "tax," but his willingness to break the SCOTUS rules and invent the tax out of
thin air in order to support it. So the question becomes: Would Roberts vote down Roe, or would he instead vote to reverse the TRAP law decisions? The politician
in him gives me the impression he is more likely to do something like that so he can feign that the legitimacy of Roe is maintained.
All of this, of course, brings the politicization of the U.S. Supreme Court to the forefront. They are not supposed to be making politically motivated decisions,
only determining if decisions already made are constitutional. Roberts inventing a tax that didn't exist (because only the House of Representatives can create a
tax, that is federal law) is the starkest abdication of duties seen in years. And he did it to manufacture a facade of bipartisanship to give the conservative
side of the court cover when these exact cases came up, as expected, and they voted party lines most of the time. The legal credibility of The Supremes has been
suspect for many years, to the degree that politicians like Ted Cruz claim "five un-elected people in Washington" are making laws for everyone to follow. It's not
true, but he gets to make this preposterous claim because of justices overstepping their responsibilities, as Roberts did. And now, people like Keith Faber think
Trump winning the election is the open door for all manner of idiotic bills to be put forth, because they see hope that the politician put into the vacant seat
will usher in a new order, where women will ultimately be required to get permission from men about everything pertaining to their bodies. And they have such high
hopes for this that all kinds of ridiculous laws will be coming down the pike. And it will be quick, as they surely think Trump's unbelievably dumb luck of winning
will only last one term.
In the mean time, Ohio folks are hoping Governor John Kasich will realize how easily this "heartbeat" bill would likely be shot down by the Appeals Courts, as it
with the previous two states who tried it, and will spare his own office the embarrassment. I doubt it. Kasich has proven himself to be a pretty stupid fellow in
his time in the governor's office. But I'll take an unexpected surprise any day.
This is one of those stories that can make you want to pull your hair out. On November 30, 2016, Buzzfeed writer Kate Aurthur wrote an article,
"Chip And Joanna Gaines’ Church Is Firmly Against Same-Sex Marriage,"
in which she addresses a video of a sermon delivered by Jimmy Seibert, the pastor of the Antioch Community Church that Chip and Johanna attend,
in which Seibert discusses marriage being between a man and a woman. The Gaineses, stars of Fixer Upper on HGTV, appear to be the target of
the article, but Aurthur couldn't get a comment or response from them, so she goes after their church instead, and then wonders "innocently":
So are the Gaineses against same-sex marriage? And would they ever feature a same-sex couple on the show, as have HGTV’s House Hunters and
Property Brothers? Emails to Brock Murphy, the public relations director at their company, Magnolia, were not returned. HGTV’s PR department
did not respond to initial emails and calls. Two days after this story was published, they released the following statement: “We don’t discriminate
against members of the LGBT community in any of our shows. HGTV is proud to have a crystal clear, consistent record of including people from all walks
of life in its series.
I find it interesting that she asks the question of HGTV, in a not-so-veiled attempt to tie HGTV to the religious faith of hosts on one of their shows.
Yet she already mentioned two other shows on the same network that have had LGBT guests. So she already knows HGTV's stance, through her own statement,
yet she asks them anyway. After dispensing with that prerequisite, the remainder of the article is her quoting the video of Seibert. The Gainses have
dutifully been mentioned - check - so anything discussed beyond that point is just "guilt by association." One could imagine the Gaineses had a suspicion
that they were being baited, which is why they refused to comment for the story.
But this article plays into a larger issue, which is people of faith only being allowed to have a livelihood if they conform to whatever you want them to
agree with. HGTV canceled plans in May 2014 for a show called Flip It Forward, hosted by twin Benham brothers, David and Jason. It should be noted that
the Benham brothers were actively public and vocal about their views on gay marriage, women's reproductive rights, and other religions. So they set
themselves up for the controversy that HGTV simply wanted no part of. But the Gaineses have not put their beliefs front and center, which is why Kate Aurthur
decided to dig, seemingly believing that the Gaineses do not have the right to keep their beliefs to themselves. She has the right to drag their beliefs
out into the open. She wants to castigate them, and she cannot do that if they don't divulge what she needs them to. They refused to respond, so the
church and Seibert get to take the hit and, if she's lucky, that stink will rub off on the Gaineses. It's the worst kind of cynicism, manifested in a
hatchet-job of an article that surmises no rhyme or reason for it's existence in the first place.
And not for nothing, but most churches have a conservative
position on gay marriage and women's reproductive rights. You can appreciate the theology of a church without subscribing to everything. I have attended
several churches over the years that were anti-abortion and pro-one man, one woman. I couldn't disagree more, but still attended a couple of those churches
because I loved the pastors and how they taught the theology. I've had lengthy debates with the pastors over those topics. They respected my views but
disagreed with me because of how they interpret the Bible. And that okay. These are beliefs we are talking about. I can't prove anything any
more than the pastors can. There is no proof. That's what faith is - belief in the absence of proof. They don't know they're right, they only believe they
are. And the Gaineses may believe the same thing as their pastor, they may not. In the belief game, you are not required to believe everything. To the
contrary, you are encouraged to question what you believe. I've never been in a church that didn't do that, because they want to teach, and you can't teach
anyone who's closed off. Questions are a good thing, because it means you are open and thinking, and that alone is proof that believing in everything is not necessary.
We live in an emotionally unstable country and, every so often, we get a reminder of that. For the last 18 months, it has been Trump. In Trump's wake, a lot
of vitriol has fallen to an undercurrent. Mike Pence, our new VP-elect, passed laws in his home state of Indiana that are among the most oppressive to the
LGBT community, under the guise of "religious freedom." I personally believe business owners should have the right to discriminate if they choose to do so.
I also thank them for doing it publicly, so I know who and what they are, and make sure I never give them a dime of my money. If people choose to protest and
boycott them for their discrimination, then so be it. They get to be run out of business because they chose to publicize their bigotry, whether they call it
religion or not. Free market, baby. Sucks to be you, but you already know that as you pack your boxes and close down, don't you? That's how it works. It
takes a lot of nerve to advertise your discrimination, then cry persecution, because you expected everyone to just accept it and continue to give you their money.
It's the height of arrogance.
On the other hand, a couple who maintains their beliefs privately are now targeted for no particular reason, and that I do have a problem with. If the Gaineases had
used their show as a platform for "religious freedom" discrimination, that would be one thing. But they haven't done that. Their beliefs are their own, and their
businesses have never discriminated, regardless of what their personal beliefs are. Isn't that what we want? For people to believe whatever they want, so long as
they don't exercise their rights at the expense of others? Isn't that the core of what our freedom is? Kate Aurthur, whether she is gay or not, has the right to
go after someone if they discriminate. But HGTV doesn't and she knows it. And instead of waiting until the Gaineses issued a public platform or refused an LGBT
guest, she decided they don't have the right to be successful unless she approves of their beliefs. So she wrote a hit piece excoriating a pastor for doing what
pastors do, hoping she could drag the Gaineses out into force a response. In a country where religious people attack with bigotry then laughingly say they need
their religious freedom protected from those they attack, this was a genuine attack on religious freedom. Go figure.
