Free Republic

I. George W. Bush on Abortion

On the campaign trail, President Bush professed to be "pro-life," but with exceptions – he believes abortion to be justified in cases of rape and incest.^1,2 The New York Times reported, "It was the same tempered language that George W. Bush typically uses to discuss abortion, which he opposes except in cases of rape, incest or risk to a pregnant woman's life."³ As Alan Keyes pointed out in the Presidential debates and in various speeches, such pro-life exceptions that allow the innocent to be killed in some circumstances disqualify President Bush from being pro-life at all.⁴ If President Bush would justify the killing of one innocent person under his jurisdiction, he is disqualified from being a good person, much less a good leader. Having a rapist for a dad is not a capital crime, and for President Bush to state that innocent children can justly be killed because of the tragic circumstances of their conception reveals that he doesn’t comprehend the basic principle of the inalienable, inviolable, God-given right to life acknowledged in our nation’s founding documents.

Also, on the campaign trail, George Bush and his wife both admitted that they don’t think Roe v. Wade should be overturned: "I don’t think the culture has changed to the extent that the American people or the Congress would totally ban abortions," President Bush professed.⁵ His wife reiterated her husband’s sentiments on a prime-time television interview on January 18, 2001. G. W. Bush has the power as the President of the United States to overturn this legal child-killing,⁶ but refuses to exercise this power, and so is responsible for all the child-killing he is allowing.

During the Presidential debates, President Bush was asked what he would say to a raped and pregnant family member. He said that he would tell her that the decision whether or not to kill the child was up to her. That is not pro-life. That’s classic pro-abortion rhetoric. If his daughter wanted to kill her grandmother to get the inheritance early, would he counsel her: "Sweetie, if you want to kill my mom, that’s completely up to you!?" Commenting on abortion on the campaign trail, President Bush stated, "good people can disagree on that issue."⁷ Oh really? This is manifestly absurd. Can good people disagree on whether or not innocent people should be murdered? I beg to differ: Good people cannot accept the murder of one single innocent human being.

Many conservatives have tried to overlook President Bush’s liberal tendencies in hopes that at the least G. W. Bush will appoint a pro-lifer to the Supreme Court, and in so doing, help overturn Roe v. Wade. Their hope is not only without evidence, it is plainly contrary to evidence. In his prime-time television debates with Gore, George Bush flatly denied that he had a pro-life litmus test for Court appointees.⁸ If a judicial candidate deemed it just and constitutional to execute innocent people, that did not exclude him from a possible appointment to the Supreme Court according to President Bush. President Bush has insisted that he will only appoint "strict constructionists" to the Court, or people who will interpret and apply the Constitution as the founders intended and not as an evolving, "living document," but according to President Bush they need not be pro-life ‘strict constructionists.’ His record as Governor of Texas shows that he does indeed appoint pro-abortion judges, so we should not be surprised if President Bush were to appoint pro-abortion judges to the Supreme Court.

Frequently displayed as evidence of President Bush’s pro-life views is his signing of legislation when he was Texas’ Governor that forbade underage girls from getting abortions without parental consent. The pro-life community roared their approval: a 13-year-old girl can’t get an aspirin without parental consent, why should she be allowed to undergo a surgical or chemical abortion without parental consent?! That’s sound pro-life legislation, right? George Bush must be pro-life, huh? Wrong! Did you realize that this piece of legislation was nullified by a Texas Supreme Court decision that ruled 6-3 that an unexceptional 17-year-old could get an abortion without telling her parents?⁹ The New York Times reported, "It was, after all, appointees of Gov. George W. Bush who took the lead on the issue…" You see, it was G.W. Bush who appointed four of the court’s nine justices and has been a political patron for a fifth, Harriet O’Neill, who wrote the majority opinion in the parental notification case. If this is what President Bush means by "strict constructionists," then any hope that he will appoint a pro-lifer to the Federal bench is baseless.

Also displayed as evidence that President Bush is pro-life was his reinstitution of Reagan’s Mexico City policy in the first days of his Presidency, which forbade taxpayer dollars from being given to organizations that perform abortions overseas.¹⁰ However, the pro-life façade soon came down. In a major policy shift, President Bush has decided to allow social service agencies in Africa and the Caribbean to receive funds from the U.S. treasury under his $15 billion emergency AIDS relief plan even if they promote family planning and provide abortions.^{11, 12} The New York Times confirmed, "Ignoring objections from his conservative base, President Bush is to make a Rose Garden speech on Tuesday in support of a $15 billion bill to fight A.I.D.S. internationally that will direct some money to groups that promote abortion," and that will do very little to actually prevent AIDS.¹³

Conservative groups also hold forth President Bush’s support of the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban" as evidence that he is indeed pro-life. Really? Does that make Tom Daschle pro-life, since he supports the Ban too? Don’t be so gullible, friend. The Partial Birth Abortion Ban won’t save a single life!¹⁴ Not one! Millions of rare pro-life dollars and countless hours of precious pro-life energy has been wasted over the course of a decade on a bill that won’t save a single life! The same babies that would perish through the "Dilation and Extraction Procedure" will die through arguably more painful "procedures" such as the "Dilation and Evacuation Procedure," where instead of being instantly killed with a stab to the head, the baby will be slowly ripped limb from limb. Furthermore, the very language of the ban encourages the killing of the baby before extraction. If an abortionist injects poison into the full-term baby’s heart, for instance, and then performs the "D & X Procedure," then the Ban would not apply.¹⁵ Thoughtful pro-lifers should oppose this counterfeit pro-life bill, this colossal waste of paper that perpetuates the Abortion Holocaust.

Thanks to G.W. Bush’s leadership, companies such as Planned Parenthood, the largest baby-killing conglomerate in the world, will get taxpayer funding. Planned Parenthood was responsible for the deaths of 227,385 Americans in 2002 alone. Planned Parenthood's 2002-2003 Annual Report shows that 33 % of its income came from federal government grants and contracts totaling $254.4 million in the fiscal year ending in June 2003, thanks to Medicaid disbursements and President Bush’s Title X of the Public Health Service Act in 2001. Under Bush, this baby-killing organization has received more tax-funds than under Clinton! Thanks in large part due to government handouts under President Bush, Planned Parenthood raked in a hefty $36.6 million profit in its last fiscal year.¹⁶

It is no exaggeration to say that President Bush kills babies. He uses his influence and power to perpetuate the Abortion Holocaust. Abortion abolitionists need to look beyond the Republican Party to find friends for the preborn. Those of us who supported George W. Bush and elected him to office may be responsible for the bloodshed that he perpetuated, either by way of our willful ignorance or our intentional refusal to judge righteous judgment, to judge President Bush by its fruit.

President Bush was being honest with the voters.

The Sin of Silence:A Defining Moment SEPTEMBER 2000

Our political leaders deal in trivialities and superficial nonsense, practicing the feel-good politics of deliberate ambiguity, while the destruction of our families, the perversion of our most basic moral principals, and the murder of innocent, unborn children goes on, and on, and on.

Those candidates in the presidential primaries who denounced the evil of abortion, and stood unequivocally for moral values, against the corruption of our times, never rose out of single digits in the polls.

And therefore, they were never considered serious contenders in this election cycle, and the moral issues for which they stood were pushed aside in favor of more practical considerations. We have come to this sorry state because Christian voters were more concerned about electability, than about integrity.

The result, to use the words of former President Gerald Ford is, "We have an election in which candidates without ideas, hire consultants without convictions, to carry out campaigns without content."

The law-breaking branch of the federal government has become move powerful than the law making branch, the President and even the Constitution.

How did five out of nine judges on the U.S. Supreme Court become so infallible that no one questions anything they say? When the Most High Court speaks, the nation must prostrate fall. U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, during his confirmation hearings, said that he would not attempt to overturn Roe v.Wade and that he considered it the "settled law of the land." The abortion edicts from the Supreme Court aren't acts of Congress, nor a constitutional amendment, but a supposedly pro-life politician declares that those edicts are "settled law."

If the U.S. Supreme Court was intended to break as many laws as they have, why does the Constitution prohibit them from being involved in the law making process? Why did Marshall have to derive the doctrine of judicial review in Marbury v Madison? Why wasn't it explicitly stated in the Constitution?

If the U.S. Supreme Court was intended to amend the Constitution, why does the Constitution prohibit them from being involved in the amendment process? If the U.S. Supreme Court was intended to enforce their own opinion, why does the Constitution leave that option with the President?

If the U.S. Supreme Court was intended to be equal to, or above the written Constitution, why does the Constitution state, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land…. and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution."

Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution provides the means for Congress to overthrow the law-breaking branch of the federal government and allow states to mend their broken laws. In the 107th Congress (2001-2002), Congress used the authority of Article III, Section 2, clause 2 on 12 occasions to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

We the People Act (HR 3893 IH) was only supported by two members of the U.S. House, and virtually unheard of, or promoted by the pro-life constituency.

It is past time to terminate the rule of broken law contained in the unconscionable and unconstitutional edicts of the U.S. Supreme court.

We the People Act needs to be reintroduced and passed by the 109th Congress and restore the rule of Law.

"The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power [1]; that it can never attack with success either of the other two;

The Worst Constitutional Decision of All Time

"As noted before, the Supreme Court did not invent abortion. There might be plenty of abortion, perhaps authorized or permitted by state laws, even without Roe and Casey. Moreover, the Court is, arguably, not directly responsible for the wrong moral choices of individuals that the Court's decisions permit. Finally, the Court is not responsible - cannot be responsible, consistent with its constitutional role - for correcting all injustices, even grave ones. But the Court is responsible for the injustices that it inflicts on society that are not consistent with, but in fact betray, its constitutional responsibilities. To the extent that the Court has invalidated essentially all legal restriction of abortion, it has authorized private violence on a scale, and of a kind, that unavoidably evokes the memories of American slavery and of the Nazi Holocaust. And by cloaking that authorization in the forms of the law - in the name of the Supreme Law of the Land - the Court has taught the American people that such private violence is a right and, by clear implication, that it is alright. Go ahead. The Constitution is on your side. This is among your most cherished constitutional freedoms. Nobody ought to oppose you in your action. We have said so.

The decision in Casey, reaffirming Roe and itself reaffirmed and extended in Carhart, in my view exposes the Supreme Court, as currently constituted, as a lawless, rogue institution capable of the most monstrous of injustices in the name of law, with a smugness and arrogance worthy of the worst totalitarian dictatorships of all time. The Court, as it stands today, has, with its abortion decisions, forfeited its legal and moral legitimacy as an institution. It has forfeited its claimed authority to speak for the Constitution. It has forfeited its entitlement to have its decisions respected, and followed, by the other branches of government, by the states, and by the People. The enthusiasm of liberal intelligentsia for the Court's abortion decisions, the sycophancy of the law professorate, of the legal profession, and of our elected officials, and the docility of the American people with respect to our lawless, authoritarian Court rivals the pliancy of the most cowardly, servile peoples toward ruinous, brutal, anti-democratic regimes throughout world history. We suffer people to commit despicable acts of private violence and we welcome - some of us revere - a regime that destroys popular government for the sake of perverted, Orwellian notions of "liberty." After a twentieth century that saw some of the worst barbarisms and atrocities ever committed by humankind, at a time when humankind supposedly had progressed to more enlightened states, we still have not learned. The lesson of the Holocaust - "Never Forget" - is lost. We fail to recognize the amazing capacity of human beings to commit unthinkable, barbaric evil, and of others to tolerate it. We remember and are aghast at the atrocities of others, committed in the past, or in distant lands today. But we do not even recognize the similar atrocities that we ourselves commit, and tolerate, today."

Michael Stokes Paulsen, The Worst Constitutional Decision of All Time, 78 Notre Dame L. Rev. 995, 1003-1007 (2003).

The Exception Makes the Rule :"Pro-Life With Exceptions" A Contradiction in Terms

When will elected officials exercise the political will to do what is necessary to overturn Roe v. Wade?

….only when the pro-life movement, its leaders and its supporters, speak with one voice, with no exception and no compromise.

For more than 29 years millions of us have done whatever we could on many fronts to restore respect for life in our country. Nearly 50 million dead babies and wounded mothers later, we are still no closer to our goal of legal protection of unborn babies….

The AP reported on January 20 that, "Mr. Bush called on Americans to ‘reject the notion that some lives are less worthy of protection than others’ . . ." A noble thought, and one we share, but how will that happen when the President himself has never said that he would do anything to try to overturn Roe? How can that happen when he, and many politicians in the Republican Party have clearly said that abortion can be justified in some cases? How can that happen when President Bush’s own position contradicts the proclamation? Indeed, he supports "exceptions" for babies conceived through rape or incest, a view that deems those babies "less worthy of protection than others." How can that happen when the President and others in power think abortion is justified if the mother’s life is in jeopardy, when today’s medical science and technology make it unnecessary to ever kill a baby to save his mother’s life? How can it happen when Laura Bush, First Lady of the land and the person closest to the President joins his mother, Barbara Bush, in saying that Roe v. Wade should not be overturned?

Beyond that, how can protection of the right to life be restored when important leaders in the pro-life movement endorse as "pro-life" politicians whose commitment and actions do not match their rhetoric? How can it be restored as long as grassroots pro-lifers don’t demand, in exchange for their support, that candidates take a position on innocent life at every stage of development that leaves no room for "exceptions" or compromise? ….As long as pro-lifers are willing to bestow the "pro-life" mantle on politicians who truly are not, abortion, deadly experiments on human embryos, human cloning, and yes, infanticide, will remain legal.

The exception makes the rule.

And so, we pray for unity in the pro-life movement. The politicians will say and do what they think they must to get our support. The outcome is our responsibility. If we are to succeed in this our Godly mission, we must demand of them total respect for all innocent life - no exceptions, no compromise.

Republican National Coalition for Life - January 22, 2002

I don't like spam any more here than I do in my e-mail -- do you?

Then stop posting.

We'll open our collective eyes when we SHOW the world what an abortion really is

Evidence and solution:

• United States Constitution, Article III Constituency

POST #122

The answer is in post #122

But, the vast majority of Americans will simply not tolerate a President who defies the judicial branch of the United States

YOU COULD HELP CHANGE THAT!

When I was around 13 my Mother told me she had tried to abort me but had been unsuccessful.

"I belong to an on-line support group (me, in a sup- port group, there's a picture) composed of adult children born of rape or incest. There are more of us in the former category than the latter. Jennifer is our webmistress, organizer, facilitator, coach, head nanny, chief nag (though very nice about it), and the child of a violent rape. Mostly, I lurk. But for some in the group, I am a kind of unofficial chaplain and sometime pastoral advisor. There are children born before Roe v. Wade as well as children born after Roe v. Wade. The handles adopted by some in the group are evocative: "former fetus," "unawares angel," names like that." Everything Personal: Children Born of Rape or Incest," Touchstone Magazine, Jan/Feb 2003

" She is a young lady who spreads joy wherever she goes. She has a place in the lives of many, not only her new husband, her parents, and her brothers, but many who know her well, and many who have met her in passing-a unique place that no one else could fill. She is happy by nature at 23, married, an avid reader, a good friend, a serious Christian. This is the person that these well-meaning people were willing to sentence to death. Oh, not now, not when they can see her; but when she was in danger the first time, in the womb and hidden from view." Robert Hart, "Her Mother's Glory: The Hardest Abortion Case," Touchstone Magazine, Jan/Feb 2003

"My name is Gianna Jessen. I would like to say thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I count it no small thing to speak the truth. I depend solely on the grace of God to do this. I am 23 years old. I was aborted and I did not die. My biological mother was 7 months pregnant when she went to Planned Parenthood in southern California and they advised her to have a late-term saline abortion.

A saline abortion is a solution of salt saline that is injected into the mothers womb. The baby then gulps the solution, it burns the baby inside and out and then the mother is to deliver a dead baby within 24 hours.

This happened to me! I remained in the solution for approximately 18 hours and was delivered ALIVE on April 6, 1977 at 6:00 am in a California abortion clinic. There were young women in the room who had already been given their injections and were waiting to deliver dead babies. When they saw me they experienced the horror of murder. A nurse called an ambulance, while the abortionist was not yet on duty, and had me transferred to the hospital. I weighed a mere two pounds. I was saved by the sheer power of Jesus Christ.

Ladies and gentleman I should be blind, burned.....I should be dead! And yet, I live! Due to a lack of oxygen supply during the abortion I live with cerebral palsy. [...] Adolph Hitler once said: '"The receptive ability of the great masses is only very limited, their understanding is small; on the other hand their forgetfulness is great. This being so, all effective propaganda should be limited to a very few points which in turn, should be used as slogans until the very last man is able to imagine what is meant by such words.'" Today's slogans are: "'a woman's right to choose"' and "freedom of choice," etcetera.

Normally when an aborted baby is accidentally born alive in a hospital--let alone in an abortion clinic--they are set aside to die of thirst, starvation, or exposure, so as not to inconvenience anyone. Indeed, doctors and hospitals have been sued for letting aborted babies live.
The Ex-abortionists: Why They Quit

As a young doctor in the early 1970s, Paul E. Jarrett, Jr., did a number of legal abortions. He began having doubts, though, after the urea-induced abortion of a mental patient. The child, weighing two pounds, was born alive, and the mother screamed, "My baby's alive! My baby's alive!" Dr. Jarrett later said, "I often wondered what we did for her mental status. That baby lived several days."

But it was a 1974 operation that "changed my mind about abortion forever." While doing a suction abortion, Jarrett found that the suction curette was obstructed by a torn-off fetal leg. So he changed techniques and dismembered the child with a ring forceps:

And as I brought out the rib cage, I looked and I saw a tiny, beating heart. And when I found the head of the baby, I looked squarely in the face of another human being–a human being that I'd just killed. I turned to the scrub nurse and said, "I'm sorry." But I just knew that I couldn't be a part of abortion any more.

The Worst Constitutional Decision of All Time

"As noted before, the Supreme Court did not invent abortion. There might be plenty of abortion, perhaps authorized or permitted by state laws, even without Roe and Casey. Moreover, the Court is, arguably, not directly responsible for the wrong moral choices of individuals that the Court's decisions permit. Finally, the Court is not responsible - cannot be responsible, consistent with its constitutional role - for correcting all injustices, even grave ones. But the Court is responsible for the injustices that it inflicts on society that are not consistent with, but in fact betray, its constitutional responsibilities. To the extent that the Court has invalidated essentially all legal restriction of abortion, it has authorized private violence on a scale, and of a kind, that unavoidably evokes the memories of American slavery and of the Nazi Holocaust. And by cloaking that authorization in the forms of the law - in the name of the Supreme Law of the Land - the Court has taught the American people that such private violence is a right and, by clear implication, that it is alright. Go ahead. The Constitution is on your side. This is among your most cherished constitutional freedoms. Nobody ought to oppose you in your action. We have said so.

The decision in Casey, reaffirming Roe and itself reaffirmed and extended in Carhart, in my view exposes the Supreme Court, as currently constituted, as a lawless, rogue institution capable of the most monstrous of injustices in the name of law, with a smugness and arrogance worthy of the worst totalitarian dictatorships of all time. The Court, as it stands today, has, with its abortion decisions, forfeited its legal and moral legitimacy as an institution. It has forfeited its claimed authority to speak for the Constitution. It has forfeited its entitlement to have its decisions respected, and followed, by the other branches of government, by the states, and by the People. The enthusiasm of liberal intelligentsia for the Court's abortion decisions, the sycophancy of the law professorate, of the legal profession, and of our elected officials, and the docility of the American people with respect to our lawless, authoritarian Court rivals the pliancy of the most cowardly, servile peoples toward ruinous, brutal, anti-democratic regimes throughout world history. We suffer people to commit despicable acts of private violence and we welcome - some of us revere - a regime that destroys popular government for the sake of perverted, Orwellian notions of "liberty." After a twentieth century that saw some of the worst barbarisms and atrocities ever committed by humankind, at a time when humankind supposedly had progressed to more enlightened states, we still have not learned. The lesson of the Holocaust - "Never Forget" - is lost. We fail to recognize the amazing capacity of human beings to commit unthinkable, barbaric evil, and of others to tolerate it. We remember and are aghast at the atrocities of others, committed in the past, or in distant lands today. But we do not even recognize the similar atrocities that we ourselves commit, and tolerate, today."^{Michael Stokes Paulsen, The Worst Constitutional Decision of All Time, 78 Notre Dame L. Rev. 995, 1003-1007 (2003).}

Destroying the Law Breaking Branch of the Federal with Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution. ...

The law-breaking branch of the federal government has become move powerful than the law making branch, the President and even the Constitution.

How did five out of nine judges on the U.S. Supreme Court become so infallible that no one questions anything they say? When the Most High Court speaks, the nation must prostrate fall. U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, during his confirmation hearings, said that he would not attempt to overturn Roe v.Wade and that he considered it the "settled law of the land." The abortion edicts from the Supreme Court aren't acts of Congress, nor a constitutional amendment, but a supposedly pro-life politician declares that those edicts are "settled law."

If the U.S. Supreme Court was intended to break as many laws as they have, why does the Constitution prohibit them from being involved in the law making process? Why did Marshall have to derive the doctrine of judicial review in Marbury v Madison? Why wasn't it explicitly stated in the Constitution?

If the U.S. Supreme Court was intended to amend the Constitution, why does the Constitution prohibit them from being involved in the amendment process? If the U.S. Supreme Court was intended to enforce their own opinion, why does the Constitution leave that option with the President?

If the U.S. Supreme Court was intended to be equal to, or above the written Constitution, why does the Constitution state, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land…. and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution."

Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution provides the means for Congress to overthrow the law-breaking branch of the federal government and allow states to mend their broken laws. In the 107th Congress (2001-2002), Congress used the authority of Article III, Section 2, clause 2 on 12 occasions to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

We the People Act (HR 3893 IH) was only supported by two members of the U.S. House, and virtually unheard of, or promoted by the pro-life constituency.

It is past time to terminate the rule of broken law contained in the unconscionable and unconstitutional edicts of the U.S. Supreme court.

We the People Act needs to be reintroduced and passed by the 109th Congress and restore the rule of Law.

Put in historical perspective, the abortion industry in America has slaughtered seven times as many helpless children as Adolf Hitler did Jews during his infamous Final Solution. What is the difference between Hitler and abortion? The world banned together and stopped Hitler.

Please do not turn this into an evolution vs. creationism debate!

This is what so many of us have been praying for! For someone, a Christian, to stand up and demand that WE have free speech too!

Can't those of us who are seeing prayers come true, just rejoice? And can't those of us who think the rest of us are "religious nutcases" just shut it?

You will have your debate threads...please don't make this one of them!

At some point in your life, you are going to have to stand up for yourself! You are going to have to accept responsibility for your perspective and promote it like everyone else does theirs. Look how far the sodomites have come in the past thirty years. They haven't made their gains by staying in the closet.

Excerpts from a relatively long paper: Clarence Thomas @ the Francis Boyer Lecture for the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research at Washington, D.C. on February 13, 2001

. . . by yielding to a false form of "civility," we sometimes allow our critics to intimidate us. As I have said, active citizens are often subjected to truly vile attacks.... To this we often respond (if not succumb), so as not to be constantly fighting, by trying to be tolerant and nonjudgmental, i.e., we censor ourselves. This is not civility. It is cowardice, or well-intentioned self-deception at best.

My beliefs about personal fortitude and the importance of defending timeless principles of justice grew out of wonderful years I spent with my grandparents; the years I have spent here in Washington; and my interest in world history, especially the history of countries in which the rule of law was surrendered to the rule of fear, such as during the rise of Nazism in what was one of the most educated and cultured countries in Europe at the time.

These "rules of orthodoxy" still apply. You had better not engage in serious debate or discussion unless you are willing to endure attacks that range from mere hostile bluster to libel. Often the temptation is to retreat to complaining about the unfairness of it all. But this is a plaintive admission of defeat. It is a unilateral withdrawal from the field of combat.

If you trim your sails, you appease those who lack the honesty and decency to disagree on the merits, but prefer to engage in personal attacks. A good argument diluted to avoid criticism is not nearly as good as the undiluted argument, because we best arrive at truth through a process of honest and vigorous debate. Arguments should not sneak around in disguise, as if dissent were somehow sinister. One should not cowed by criticism.

In my humble opinion, those who come to engage in debates of consequence, and who challenge accepted wisdom, should expect to be treated badly. Nonetheless, they must stand undaunted. That is required. And, that should be expected. For, it is bravery that is required to secure freedom.

On matters of consequence, reasons and arguments must be of consequence. Therefore, those who choose to engage in such debates must themselves be of consequence.

Much emphasis these days is placed on who has the quickest tongue, and who looks best on television. There seems to be an obsession with how one looks to others; hence, a proliferation of public relations professionals and spin doctors. As I was counseled some years ago, perceptions are more important than reality. But this is madness. No car has ever crashed into a mirage. No imaginary army has ever invaded a country.

It does no good to argue ideas with those who will respond as brutes. Works of genius have often been smashed and burned, and geniuses have sometimes been treated no better.

But, there is much wisdom that requires no genius. It takes no education and no great intellect to know that it is best for children to be raised in two parent families. Yet, those who dare say this are often accused of trying to impose their values on others. This condemnation does not rest on some great body of counterevidence; it is purely and simply an in-your-face response. It is, in short, intimidation. For brutes, the most effective tactic is to intimidate an opponent into the silence of self-censorship.

Even if one has a valid position, and is intellectually honest, he has to anticipate nasty responses aimed at the messenger rather than the argument. The aim is to limit the range of the debate, the number of messengers, and the size of the audience. The aim is to pressure dissenters to sanitize their message, so as to avoid hurtful ad hominem criticism. Who wants to be calumniated? It's not worth the trouble.

But is it worth it? Just what is worth it, and what is not? If one wants to be popular, it is counterproductive to disagree with the majority. If one just wants to tread water until the next vacation, it isn't worth the agony. If one just wants to muddle through, it is not worth it. In my office, a little sign reads: "To avoid criticism, say nothing, do nothing, be nothing."

This tendency, in large part, results from an overemphasis on civility. None of us should be uncivil in our manner as we debate issues of consequence. No matter how difficult it is, good manners should be routine. However, in the effort to be civil in conduct, many who know better actually dilute firmly held views to avoid appearing "judgmental." They curb their tongues not only in form but also in substance. The insistence on civility in the form of our debates has the perverse effect of cannibalizing our principles, the very essence of a civil society.

Gertrude Himmelfarb refers to two kinds of virtues. The first are the "caring" virtues. They include "respect, trustworthiness, compassion, fairness, decency. " These are the virtues that make daily life pleasant with our families and those with whom we come in contact.

The second are the vigorous virtues. These heroic virtues "transcend family and community and may even, on occasion, violate the conventions of civility. These are the virtues that characterize great leaders, although not necessarily good friends."

She notes that the vigorous virtues have been supplanted by the caring ones. Though they are not mutually exclusive or necessarily incompatible, active citizens and leaders must be governed by the vigorous rather than the caring virtues. We must not allow our desire to be decent and well-mannered people to overwhelm the substance of our principles or our determination to fight for their success. Ultimately, we should seek both caring and vigorous virtues-but above all, we must not allow the former to dominate the latter.

Listen to the truths that lie within your heart, and be not afraid to follow them wherever they may lead you.

The result, to use the words of former President Gerald Ford is, "We have an election in which candidates without ideas, hire consultants without convictions, to carry out campaigns without content."

Language of bill of address, sponsored by Rep. Emile J. Goguen (D-Fitchburg), NOW before the Massachusetts Legislature:

Resolved, That both houses of the legislature hereby request the Governor by way of address, under the provisions of Article I of Chapter III of Part the Second of the Constitution, to remove Margaret H. Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court, from her office, to remove John M. Greaney, Associate Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court, from his office, to remove Roderick L. Ireland, Associate Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court, from his office, and to remove Judith A. Cowin, Associate Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court, from her office.

This past session the leadership stalled it in the House Rules Committee. It's been gaining support and won't be stopped

No one can possibly read the Massachusetts Constitution and find a "fundamental right" to same-sex marriage. It comes from the tortured logic of an activist court. We cannot credibly claim to live in a democracy when our most basic laws can be dismantled by four unelected political appointees. A failure of the citizens to respond appropriately would concede that we've lost control of our own government. We live here, raise our families here, and pay taxes here. We pay the salaries of our legislators so they can protect us. We demand that they do their job.

What is a Bill of Address?

How is it different from an impeachment?

The Bill of Address

The Massachusetts Constitution, written by John Adams in 1780, anticipated that courts could get out of control, that judicial tyranny could happen. In fact, both Adams and Jefferson identified the judiciary as the biggest threat to a democracy.

Thus, the "checks and balances" written into our constitution already include the means for dealing with situation we are in: What to do when Supreme Judicial Court justices ignore the law or twist it to impose their own views on the citizens?

The constitutional solution is not to amend the constitution whenever the judiciary becomes despotic. (That would surely lead to anarchy.) The intended remedy is to remove judges from office who violate their oath and oppress the people.

John Adams purposely put into the Massachusetts Constitution the procedure known as a bill of address. The Legislature can remove renegade judges from office by a simple majority in both legislative chambers, with the subsequent agreement of the governor and governor's council. (Many other states have adopted similar procedures in their constitutions.) The bill of address procedure has in fact been used several times throughout the history of the Commonwealth.

The ideas behind it are straightforward. Article 8 of the Declaration of Rights sets the theme used throughout the Constitution. It uses the term "oppressors" and states the right of the people to remove their public officials:

"In order to prevent those, who are vested with authority, from becoming oppressors, the people have a right, at such periods and in such manner as they shall establish by their frame of government, to cause their public officers to return to private life; and to fill up vacant places by certain and regular elections and appointments."

Article 29 of the Declaration of Rights defines "bad behavior" of judges which could cause them to be removed from office:

"It is essential to the preservation of the rights of every individual, his life, liberty, property, and character, that there be an impartial interpretation of the laws, and administration of justice... It is, therefore, not only the best policy, but for the security of the rights of the people, and of every citizen, that the judges of the supreme judicial court should hold their offices as long as they behave themselves well."

Article 30 of the Declaration of Rights further states that the judiciary may not invent their own laws -- only the Legislature can make laws:

"In the government of this commonwealth . . . the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men."

Article 1 of Chapter 3 of Section the Second defines the bill of address removal process for all judicial officers:

"All judicial officers, duly appointed, commissioned and sworn, shall hold their offices during good behavior, . . . the governor, with the consent of the council, may remove them upon the address of both houses of the legislature."

Theoretically, it could all happen in one day (not the multi-year process it takes for a Constitutional amendment)!

This bill of address goes back to English law -- the 1700 Act of Settlement, under the English monarchs William and Mary. Its purpose was the same: to ensure the accountability of public officers by the Parliament -- part of a true system of checks and balances -- rather than either simply giving judges unrestrained power or subjecting them to removal at the pleasure of the Crown.

Different from Impeachment

There is a big difference between removal by bill of address and impeachment. An impeachment process, as described in Article VIII or Section II of the Massachusetts Constitution, includes a trial by the House before the Senate for "misconduct and mal-administration in their offices".

The bill of address is different; it is a check and balance for misuse of power. Specifically, the bill of address is imposed for "bad behavior" which can include a range of issues, but is officially defined as not carrying out "an impartial interpretation of the laws, and administration of justice".

A bill of address process has no trial required. And there don't have to be any stated reasons. Thus, the process historically has happened very quickly.

What is really needed

A bill of address does require something that is in short supply these days: political courage from our legislators. But if the people of Massachusetts are to regain control of their government, and keep these four rogue justices from wreaking further social destruction, this is what is necessary. And it is necessary now.

Or else, what's next? The SJC is now in the process of re-examining the incest laws, according to newspaper reports, to see if they are also unconstitutional. This could be just the beginning.