The Liberal Agenda and It's Contradictions

As I’m sure you are aware, there are many disturbing things about liberals in this country. Liberals are extremely vocal in expressing their often- deviant views, and they are obnoxiously tenacious in their ceaseless efforts to have their agenda accepted by the majority of the American population. The word “agenda” is important in this situation. Liberals are rarely united by a systematic belief system; rather, they are motivated by certain goals set forth in an agenda and are ignorant of the contradictions that often arise from the conflicting goals they set out to win for themselves. Well, I should clarify. The goals of the liberal movement rarely conflict with each other. They clamor unanimously for freedom from any sort of moral constraint, and usually they are quick to dismiss morality entirely. They make exceptions, of course, so that they still may condemn harm done to animals or the environment, and eating unhealthily or avoiding fads advocated by gay men on TV shows are always mortal sins. That’s another point: the term “sin” has been reserved for descriptions of passé wardrobes or other fashion faux pas.

The contradictions arise from the means used to achieve the agreed- upon ends. For example, it’s a universally accepted by the liberal movement that abortion is a right bestowed upon humanity by the eternal goddess above and explicitly laid out in the Constitution. Since this right is fundamental to a liberated society, and since it is at the same time under attack from haters and extremists across the country, liberals must be constantly vigilant in their fight to preserve this right.

Recently, a woman pregnant with twins in Salt Lake City was advised by her doctor to have a cesarean section, or one of her children would die. The woman, Melissa Ann Rowland, refused to have the procedure, afraid that being cut “from breast bone to pubic bone” would “ruin her life.” Despite the fact that c-sections do not involve long vertical incisions, such as the kind this woman was afraid of receiving, her fear of having a life- long scar prevented her from opting to give birth to her children when recommended by the doctors. Ultimately, one of her twins was still- born on January 13. It had died two days before, and the doctor performing the autopsy concluded that had Rowland had a c-section when advised by her doctors, the child would still be alive. On top of that, drugs were found in the children’s system, and so Rowland was imprisoned on endangerment charges and later arrested for the murder of her child.

Feminists, predictably, were livid the moment this news broke. “The prosecution of Melissa Ann Rowland is appalling for so many reasons, I hardly know where to begin,” fumed Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women (NOW). She raged about the prosecution of this poor, helpless, innocent woman, and, in a reaction to the fact that Rowland explicitly disobeyed doctor’s orders and thus killed her child, said, “Some doctors may think they are God, but when did 'doctor's orders' become the law?”

So, a doctor felt that it would be in this woman’s best interest, both for her and for her children, to have a certain medical procedure, but for “cosmetic motivations,” she declined. “Doctor’s orders” can’t be law! That results, apparently, in victimization of women and an obstruction of the all- important “choice.” Since the issue of abortion- on- demand is extremely important to NOW, they react strongly to every mention of abortion in the news and in public policy. When Bush signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, the feminists grew angry as usual. Reading remarks on the subject, by Kim Gandy again, one finds an interesting contradiction.

“Try as you might, you won't find the term 'partial birth abortion' in any medical dictionary… It doesn't even contain a provision to permit the procedure if it is necessary to preserve the woman's health and future fertility.” She later decries the bill further by listing five doctors’, nurses’, and health organizations that have refused to support it. In this case, the doctor prescribes a certain abortion procedure, so NOW has no qualms in using doctors’ support to endorse their claims.

So, should doctors’ orders be law or not? It seems, in the case of NOW, that if the doctor supports your side, his opinions are valid and should be cased in law. However, if a doctor has the audacity to fly in the face of the Hippocratic Oath by attempting to protect the life of one of his patients, one should discredit his medical opinions by dismissing him as a “doctor” with mere “orders” that should be followed or disobeyed at will. Herein lies the contradiction: to NOW, and countless other liberal organizations, achieving their questionable goals is a far more important end than whatever means they employ to reach these goals. Whether securing abortions means contradictions, lies, deception, or defending as innocent, vain, drug-addicted women who care more about a scar than a child, NOW will employ any necessary means because, to them, abortion is paramount to even truth, morality, and medical health.

Two other obvious liberal goals are homosexual rights and universal access to contraception. The pursuit for these two ends have led to odd conclusions in two major California court cases.

First, the American Civil Liberties Union has been lunging at the throat of the Boy Scouts of America for quite some time now since the Boy Scouts have refused to sell out like the Girl Scouts. Whereas the Girls have allowed feminists speakers and sexual material to infiltrate and permeate their organization, the Boy Scouts have remained staunch in their opposition to allowing openly homosexual men to be troop leaders and scoutmasters. As a private organization, they have every right to make this decision and enforce it; however, the “constitutional right to privacy” only applies to sodomy in private bedrooms and not to decisions made by upstanding societies made up of young boys dedicated to honor, loyalty, trust, and obedience. So, liberals hate the Boy Scouts.

The Boy Scouts have leased a property from the City of San Diego since the 1950’s, paying a rent of $1 a year to the city for public park land that they have developed – using their own money – by adding campsites and other facilities to the land. The ACLU recently prompted the City to cancel the lease and kick the Scouts off the land because they say the Boy Scouts are a type of religion, and therefore should not be receiving public benefits.

Another parallel case deserves to be examined here: a recent California law requires employers who provide health care plans to include coverage of contraception to their employees. The law makes an exception for religious employers so that none will have to violate the free exercise of their religion and violate what many consider a sin. So, Catholic Charities of Sacramento decided not to provide contraception for their employees. Someone challenged this, and the Supreme Court of California decided that Catholic Charities is not a religious employer and therefore the exception does not apply.

To recapitulate – in order to staunch offenses against homosexual rights and provide contraception for every Californian woman, two separate California courts have decided that the Boy Scouts are a religion, but Catholic Charities is not. The Courts in California have long been considered barren wastelands of liberalism, save one or two conservative judges, but this is a new low in the effort to discard every sort of precedent of legal conduct in order to do harm to conservatives by any means possible. The liberals have abandoned integrity and logic in order to impose their wanton desires and bizarre notions of “rights” on the unsuspecting American public.

The author raised a really good point here. The woman was going to have twins. Thus, the doctor had in reality, three patients. And the Doctor, being true to his oath, wanted to protect the life of one of the patients. The patient died due to the negligence of the mother. Now this was not a case of partial birth abortion. This was a case of a woman not wanting a scar. She made her "choice," and it caused the death of a baby.

Great article. Only point I disagree with is the notion that the liberal agenda doesn't -often- disagree with itself. It is -usually- self-contradictory.

My favorites are when the interests of one designated "victim group" runs afoul of another designated "victim group". Those are usually hilarious, the way they have to go into contortions to explain their contradictory positions.

Qwinn

Well written; succinct; and, to the point. That is, or should be the debate. These people (liberals) are, out-and-out, on the attack -- and have been for some time. While we decry issues of individual of abuse, they attack on a broad front. These people are ruthlessly unethical. And when they control the law, when they control the law courts, "they" can afford to be. It's that same subversion of law, moral and or otherwise, that the born as well as the unborn need fear. For there's precious little distinction between the two.

The patient died due to the negligence of the mother.

So do you think the state should have the power to force you to undergo a surgical procedure against one's will? In China there are pregnant women who are forced to undergo abortions and sterilizations without consent. If you look at a photo of the mother, it is quite obvious that she is not mentally competent to make many decisions.

"In China there are pregnant women who are forced to undergo abortions and sterilizations without consent"

This isn't China, and this did not involve an abortion or sterilization. Re-read the article as to location and circumstances.

"If you look at a photo of the mother, it is quite obvious that she is not mentally competent to make many decisions."

Drugs will do that to you. And BTW, if she can't make a competent decision, she shouldn't be having sex without being sterilized.

"So do you think the state should have the power to force you to undergo a surgical procedure against one's will?"

I would hesitate to give the State that power in general. But she did make a choice didn't she? And now she may go to trial for the death of the baby. She didn't choose life, she chose death. Evidently, she was mentally competent enough to make THAT decision wasn't she? In essence we have a dead baby, a mother who may go to prison, and the other baby in foster care. Such a happy ending!

This isn't China, and this did not involve an abortion or sterilization. Re-read the article as to location and circumstances.

If the courts rule against this woman we will be heading in the direction of China.

Drugs will do that to you. And BTW, if she can't make a competent decision, she shouldn't be having sex without being sterilized.

If the state could forcibly sterilize drug addicts without their consent, why couldn't the state sterilize conservatives or Christians? The power to forcibly sterilize people is very easily abused. The Chinese have been using it in Tibet as a way of reducing the native Tibeten populuation.

I would hesitate to give the State that power in general. But she did make a choice didn't she? And now she may go to trial for the death of the baby.

There is a very big moral difference between a refusal of surgery to prevent the death of a child in utero and medically intervening to terminate a pregnancy where there is a perfectly healthy fetus especially late in the pregnancy. There are all sorts of potential surgeries that could be performed on fetuses to correct congentital defects but could potentially harm the mother. Would you force a woman to undergo such a procedure even if it would be dangerous to her even though it may improve the survival of the child? I think this case can set bad precents on both sides of this issue. I would prefer that this case be dismissed.

Motion denied counselor. Has the plaintiff anything to say? Plaintiff? ... Ah, I've just been informed that the plaintiff will not be appearing today, due to the fact that his mother wanted to avoid an unsightly cesarean scar. ... So, for $5, nobody told this mother she wouldn't have much of a scar? No ... your honor, in fact someone told this woman, she would have a scar from her chin to her big toe. Hmmm ... is the person who told her that having sex? Ah, I think he's a doctor. Would this woman's life have been endangered in any way by giving birth by cesarean section? I'm afraid not your honor. And could the scar have been minimized by vitamin E. Yes. In that case, I'm ruling for the plaintiff. Ah ... your honor, the plaintiff won't be appearing today.

"If the courts rule against this woman we will be heading in the direction of China."

The Chinese, as a matter of Governmental policy, abort or kill the children of Tibetan women against their will. In Utah, the Doctor told the woman she had to have an operation to let the child live. She refused. And you still see us heading in the direction of China?

"If the state could forcibly sterilize drug addicts without their consent, why couldn't the state sterilize conservatives or Christians?"

Forced sterilization is a slippery slope isn't it? However, my point was not about the forced sterilization of someone because of drug addiction. It was in response to your claim that she was mentally incompetent. If she is incompetent the man who had sex with her could be charged with rape under the laws in some States. And she would be appointed a conservator, someone who would lawfully prevent someone from having sex with her because she could not make a competent and informed decision to have sex, and children. Now tell me, would you have a mentally incompetent woman running around being taken advantage of sexually, and constantly getting pregnant and bearing children, some live and some stillborn? How sick!

"I think this case can set bad precedents on both sides of this issue"

Well it is a nasty set of circumstances! She was told that if she didn't have a C-section that the baby would die. She refused because it would leave a scar. And there is the unfortunate part about drugs being found in the dead baby's system. So that raises a question about fetal abuse. I would say that this case must proceed and let the jurors decide the facts.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.