Daily Archives: October 11, 2021

The divisive national debate about abortion is in the news as much as ever. Texas new ban on abortions after six weeks of pregnancy was blocked by a judge on Wednesday but allowed to continue on Friday, Democrats huge spending bill is in part being held up by an amendment allowing federal funding of abortion, and, in what will be the most-watched case in decades, the Supreme Court may overturn its 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling later this year.

The Roe ruling highlighted the greatest logical flaw in support for abortion: for abortion to be illegal at some point before birth (and even most pro-choice Americans agree it should be illegal in the very late stages), you have to pick that point in time. But when?

With Roe, the Supreme Court first took a trimester approach to when abortion should be permitted. As the Roe opinion was drafted, the justices disagreed on the stage at which abortion should be regulated, even changing that point from the end of the first trimester to the end of the second.

In its final form, Roe forbade virtually all abortion regulation in the first trimester, allowed regulation only if serving the mothers health in the second, and banned prohibition in the third trimester when a mothers health was a consideration. The latter was broadly defined in the companion case Doe v. Bolton to include emotional, psychological, and family health, thus effectively allowing all abortions.

The justice who wrote the majority opinion in Roe, Harry Blackmun, even wrote in a memo to his colleagues that Roes use of trimesters was arbitrary but perhaps any other selected point, such as quickening or viability (of the fetus), is equally arbitrary. In Roe, the court did not resolve the question of when life begins but ruled that a fetus did not qualify as a person as used in the Constitution.

Later, the Supreme Court abandoned the arbitrary trimester framework in favor of another arbitrary and selected point Blackmun had identified in that memo. In its 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey ruling, the court barred undue burdens on abortion before fetal viability.

But drawing the line at the point of viability is also problematic that point will continue to get earlier in the pregnancy as medical advances create better means of keeping the unborn alive outside the womb; indeed, viability is now weeks earlier than it was when Roe was decided. Yet the unborn child did not become a person because it could survive due to modern science. Newborns are not technically viable either, as they cannot survive on their own. By this logic, we should consider it acceptable to kill newborns.

As the issue comes to the forefront of national debate yet again with the court hearing oral arguments on December 1 in Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization, here are the many reasons the arguments in favor of abortion are wrong.

Pro-Abortion Claim: The government should stay out of peoples private lives. This is a womans choice, not anyone elses, and a womens rights issue.

Why Its Wrong: Laws often restrict an individuals rights, including the right to hurt another person or infringe upon anothers rights. In taking the life of an unborn child, a woman is taking away the most basic of all rights.

An unborn child is not part of a womans body, but a separate, individual human being with its own rights. It is not the mothers property, just as parents are legal guardians of children but not the childrens owners and are not allowed to abuse their children.

Pro-Abortion Claim: When most abortions take place, in early pregnancy, a fertilized egg is just a mass of cells, not a human being. It doesnt feel pain.

Why Its Wrong: A new life begins at conception and should not be destroyed by human interference.

First, one-third of abortions take place after nine weeks of pregnancy. From the moment of conception, the zygote has its own unique DNA structure, is alive and growing, and is equipped to become a mature human being.

Six weeks after conception, the unborn childs heartbeat is detectable but began beating before then. At week three, neural development begins. At week four, the eye, ear, and respiratory systems begin to form. At week six, the mouth and lips are present. At week seven, the embryo looks like a baby.

The beginning of life could be defined by many different points of development fertilization (the fusion of the nuclei of the sperm and egg cell), implantation, the first movement, heartbeat, or brain waves, consciousness, or birth. Any point you choose could be just a days difference between life and death for an unborn child. Nor does the absence of pain at early stages make it moral to kill the unborn child, just as it would not with an adult.

Abortion can involve sucking a baby out of the uterus (or as Planned Parenthood putsit, the suction machine is turned on and the uterus is gently emptied), causing a stillbirth by injecting a salt solution into the uterus, and other horrors.

Pro-Abortion Claim: Abortion cant be a crime against nature if fertilized eggs are spontaneously miscarried in nature.

Why Its Wrong: The occurrence of an event in nature does not justify deliberately mimicking that event. The elderly die of natural causes, but that doesnt make it right to kill them. And many miscarriages are associated with extra or missing chromosomes.

Pro-Abortion Claim: Birth control isnt 100 percent effective. When it fails, women have been responsible and need abortion as another method to avoid having a child.

Why Its Wrong: Seven percent of women report having unprotected sex in the past three months, not including 8 percent who have unprotected sex but are seeking pregnancy or already pregnant. Many people who use birth control do not do so effectively. The pregnancy prevention rate of birth-control pills used consistently and correctly is 99 percent. For that small portion who correctly used birth control but it did not work, they have to accept the risks of sexual activity, which include a child. Contraception is free with most health insurance plans and easily available.

Pro-Abortion Claim: In the case of rape or incest, when a woman was an innocent victim of an involuntary act, she should not be forced to carry a child. She would be forced to suffer even more.

Why Its Wrong: One percent of women say they want an abortion because they were raped, and less than 0.5 percent say they are pregnant as a result of incest. Even in such very rare cases, an unborn child should not be killed for another persons evil deed. The pregnant woman needs love and support, not more trauma.

An estimated 800,000 abortions take place in the United States each year. Common reasons given for seeking an abortion are that a child would disrupt the mothers education (38 percent), interfere with job or career (38 percent), or be unaffordable (73 percent). About half of respondents said they didnt want to be a single mom or were having relationship problems.

About a third said they didnt want any more kids; 25 percent said they didnt want people to know they had sex or got pregnant; 32 percent said they werent ready for a child; and 22 percent didnt feel mature enough to raise children. More than half of those seeking abortion have had at least one previous birth.

Pro-Abortion Claim: Minors are too young for the responsibilities of parenthood.

Why Its Wrong: About 3 percent of females who get abortions are younger than 18, and 8 percent are 18 to 19 years old. Parents of minors should teach their children about the consequences of sex, the benefits of abstinence, and the limitations of contraception, among other things: Sex can lead to pregnancy and if it does the unborn child should not be killed. Accepting truths that you dont like is part of maturity and sex should be reserved for mature people ready to care for a child.

Pro-Abortion Claim: If abortion were made legal only in cases of rape or incest, women would lie.

Why Its Wrong: The court system could settle the truth of their claims and more reporting of rape and incest would help bring perpetrators to justice.

Pro-Abortion Claim: Abortion is safer than continuing a pregnancy to term.

Why Its Wrong: Even if abortion is safer than pregnancy, that doesnt make it right. But with modern medicine, the death risks for both abortion and pregnancy are low.

Pro-Abortion Claim: It would be better for abnormal fetuses to be aborted than live with poor health or a disability.

Why Its Wrong: In the case of the small minority of fetuses with a potentially life-threatening abnormality, a natural death may result, but, if not, the child should be given the benefit of the doubt, not be killed. Its wrong to kill disabled people for their disabilities.

Pro-Abortion Claim: If abortion were outlawed, women would just get riskier, dangerous abortions.

Why Its Wrong: People break other laws with repercussions too, but we dont avoid that outcome by not making those laws. Plus, outlawing abortion would save millions of unborn babies lives.

It is difficult to know the number of abortions resulting in death before abortion was legalized, because many illegal abortions went unreported. Education is the best alternative, so that women know the risks of trying to get an abortion illegally, how to effectively use birth control, and how they can receive assistance as mothers.

Pro-Abortion Claim: The right to an abortion has led to a more prosperous society as women have continued in their careers and low-income couples have not been burdened with an additional expense. Abortion has reduced the child abuse and crime that arise from unwanted children.

Why Its Wrong: Abortion has been bad for our society, as it devalues human life and the fulfillment that only family and children, not a job, can provide. If women want to put careers first or cant afford children, they should practice abstinence or correctly use birth control and accept the consequences if those fail.

If women are poor and do have children, the government provides assistance. Adoption is also a better option than killing an unborn child. Many loving, screened, financially stable parents are waiting to adopt babies.

As for whether studies prove that abortion has reduced crime or abuse, this is a dangerous line of argument. Should we abort babies of certain groups more likely to be criminals?

Pro-Abortion Claim: A woman has a right to privacy, as recognized by the Supreme Court, and to make her own decisions about her life and happiness.

Why Its Wrong: Roe v. Wade continues to be so strongly resisted because it was deeply legally flawed.

In the majority opinion in Roe, Justice Blackmun acknowledged that the Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy, and thus abortion, but that a number of prior court decisions have found a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy grounded in the First, Fifth, and particularly the Ninth and 14th Amendments.

The latter reads, No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. The Ninth Amendment states, The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The legal arguments are lengthy, but the short version is that the constitutional right to liberty simply does not grant the right to kill another person, and an unborn child is a person. The Constitution does not explicitly guarantee a right to privacy or, by extension, abortion. The Supreme Court has been gravely wrong before (such as with racist rulings in Dred Scott v. Sandfordand Plessy v. Ferguson).

Abortion is a deeply divisive issue, and about half of Americans consider themselves pro-life and half call themselves pro-choice. Overturning Roe would not end abortion rights but return the issue to the states, allowing for a more democratic process.

Continued here:

12 Pro-Life Truths To Counter Every Abortion Myth - The Federalist

Like everything else, the Austin City Limits music festival was canceled last year, so even though serious rain had turned Zilker Park into a humid, puddled swamp, I went last weekend, just like I have every year since 2005.

I was there for the Dust Bowl year when all the grass in the park died, and everyone who went coughed up black dust for months afterward. I was there for the mud year when it rained buckets and the park turned into a pit of stinky Dillo Dirt that required millions of dollars and acres and acres of new grass to fix.

I was there for my bachelor party, since its my favorite weekend of the entire year. Well, based on this years visit I think this festival is dying, and its a problem of their own making.

The festival was founded to celebrate the sounds of Austin: folk, rock n roll, and outlaw country. So much for that. Outside of the legendary George Strait, who headlined Fridays lineup, I knew almost none of the major acts performing this year. Meghan Thee Stallion, Doja Cat, Tyler the Creator? I have no idea who these people are.

The headlining acts that I do know, I am not very fond of: Billie Eilish and Miley Cyrus. Really? This is the same festival where Willie Nelson has played (multiple times). So have Bob Dylan, My Morning Jacket, Arcade Fire, Sir Paul McCartney, Jack White, The Killers, The Eagles, Robert Plant with Alison Krauss, Gary Clark Jr., David Byrne, Buddy Guy, John Prine, Jon Batiste, Van MorrisonI could go on and on. You know, real musicians.

One local DJ who has been in Austin forever noted that it is playing to not just a younger audience, but also the large amount of California transplants who have moved to Austin in the last few years. These are the same California transplants who are driving up housing costs, driving up crime rates, and ruining the Keep Austin Weird culture that has made this city unique for generations.

This is also the year the festival became openly political. Sure, its live music, so its not unheard of for an act to say something or sing something from the stage with a political undertone. Im not saying that hasnt happened before.

This year, though, politics seemed baked into the festival from the start, and thats disappointing. We already get bombarded by politics at every turn in our daily lives. The ACL festival is the place I go to escape the outside world every year, to reset and recharge my batteries. That was almost impossible this year.

Festival organizers brought in former state Sen. Wendy Davis, a Democrat known for her strident pro-abortion stance, and gave her a speaking slot on a small stage at the festival to rail against the new Texas pro-life law. This side stage is a relatively newer addition to ACL, but in the past it tended to have interviews with musicians or local food legends. Now its being used to unnecessarily stir the political pot. Why do we need to inject a debate about a hotly contested political issue into a perfectly good music festival?

The acts on the stage also took plenty of opportunities to rail against anyone who didnt tow the most liberal of political lines, most notably Eilish, who constantly harped upon Texas pro-life protections during her set, saying, When they made that sh-t a law, I almost didnt want to do the show. Because I wanted to punish this fucking place for allowing that to happen here.

She went on to say, You deserve everything in the world. And we need to tell them to shut the f-ck up! My body, my f-cking choice!

Again, is there really a need to divide fans by bringing up controversial political issues in such a vitriolic manner during your set? Cant we just all enjoy some music, or does everything have to be politically charged these days? What used to be a festival about people enjoying great music while munching on great food has become a political rally for the TikTok crowd and San Francisco transplants.

That doesnt even count the COVID theater you had to participate in just to get in the door of the park. The city of Austin has already canceled many other festivals and outdoor happenings in the name of COVID. For ACL to get a permit to use a city park for the festival this year, they had to promise to check peoples COVID status at the gate and enforce masking in tight areas.

To get past the security guards at the front, you had to either show a copy of your vaccine record or a negative COVID test within the last 72 hours. However, the guy who checked my card upon entry barely looked at it. I could have shown him a library card or someone elses record, and Im not sure he would have noticed.

The masking was even more of a joke. Almost none of the security guards, particularly on Friday, were wearing masks. I didnt see many of the festival staff wearing masks either, and if you were a VIP or Platinum Pass holder, forget about it.

Even many of the regular Joes who just had general admission passes ditched their masks as soon as they got past the front gate. I took two, just in case, but despite the theatrical event at the front gate, and the you must wear a mask drumbeat in the press ahead of time, masking by the nearly half a million people who attend ACL is minimal at best.

Again, this begs the question, if we can attend football games crammed shoulder to shoulder with strangers and festivals with tens of thousands of music fans, why is our ability to celebrate Christmas in doubt, Dr. Fauci?

Now, this is supposed to be a column about beer, so let me say a few things about what I drank at the festival this year.

At ACL, you have two options for beer. There are the bars sprinkled throughout the park that serve mostly tallboy cans of Coors, Miller Lite, and the occasional Sol. Then, there is the Craft Beer Hall, a large tent that serves drafts of a more diverse set of beers.

In years past, this has been mostly craft beers from local breweries and more well-known but still small brewers from places like Colorado, Michigan, and California. This year, they pared back the number of actual craft options quite significantly.

There was the award-winning Electric Jellyfish IPA from Austin pizza and beer chain Pinthouse Pizza, McConauhaze IPA (named after a true Austinite, the Oscar-winning actor, and potential gubernatorial candidate Matthew McConaughey) from Twisted X Brewery, Long Gone Blonde, a tasty, easy-drinking blonde ale from Whitestone Brewery in Cedar Park, then a host of beers from Karbach, the formerly independent Houston brewery that is now owned by Anheuser-Busch.

Since it was incredibly hot and muggy this year, I mostly drank water. When I did have a beer, I went for the easier drinking options both of the blondes offered in the beer tent.

Love Street is a Kolsch-style blonde from Karbach. Appropriately enough, it is named after a music venue. This is a golden-colored beer that is effervescent, light on the hops, and not very malty. Its not a beer youre going to sit down, drink, and analyze to death, but on a hot day, when you want to cool down with a decent beer, Love Street will do the trick.

Long Gone Blonde from the fine folks at Whitestone Brewing has more flavor than Love Street does, with interesting hints of vanilla and orange. This beer is refreshing, easy drinking, and enjoyable, even while being baked under a blazing hot, unforgiving sun.

A good local beer like the Long Gone Blonde makes it easier to forget all the noise around you and just enjoy the music. Thats getting harder and harder to do at ACL, though, with its shifting demographic focus and increased politicization.

However, if the folks at C3 can see past the mounds of money they make from the tech bros and TikTok trollers and remember that music is something that is meant to be enjoyed by everyone no matter his class, creed, or political tribe, then maybe, just maybe, they can save Americas best music festival.

Brad Jackson is a writer and radio personality whose work has appeared at ABC, CBS, Fox News, and multiple radio programs. He was the longtime host and producer of Coffee & Markets, an award-winning podcast and radio show with more than 1,500 episodes. Brad covers all things edible and cultural for The Federalist. You can find him on Twitter and Instagram at @bradwjackson.

See the original post here:

How The Politicization of Everything Is Ruining Music Festivals - The Federalist

Former President Donald Trump demanded that the Pulitzer Prizes staff immediately revoke the award granted to The New York Times and The Washington Post in 2018 for their Russia hoax reporting, which he said was based on false reporting of a non-existent link between the Kremlin and the Trump Campaign.

In the letter, Trump pushed the Pulitzer Prizes interim administrator Bud Kliment to admit that the corporate medias coverage of Russiagate was no more than a politically motivated farce which attempted to spin a false narrative that my campaign supposedly colluded with Russia despite a complete lack of evidence underpinning this allegation.

Trump noted that the Pulitzer board not only overlooked the falsities and deceptions woven into these stories but praised the sensational headlines that leaned heavily on unsubstantiated anonymous sources.

As a result, the public was deprived of an independent means of assessing their credibility, their potential for political bias, and the source of their knowledge, Trump wrote. For two years, these institutions feverishly pushed one Russia story after another and despite lacking any credible evidence attempted to persuade the public that my campaign had colluded with the Russian government.

Even when conservative media such as The Federalist questioned the legitimacy of these reports, exposing the clear logical fallacies contained in their narratives and pointing to the clear lack of evidence underpinning them, Trump said the public was misled to believe that he colluded with Russians.

Trump noted that not only were these allegations confirmed to be false, but the recent indictment of Hillary Clintons campaign attorney, Michael Sussmann, serves as a damning repudiation of the medias obsession with the collusion story.

The former president maintains that the Pulitzer Prize has been widely recognized as a significant achievement in the field of journalism even though it was awarded to Nikole Hannah-Joness 1619 Project, which The New York Times begrudgingly modified after scholars noted it contained historical inaccuracies.

It has been viewed by many as an honor that is meant to be bestowed upon well-deserving recipients in recognition of their groundbreaking journalistic efforts. This level of reverence carries with it a very important connotation, namely that the reporting itself is inherently deemed credible, well-sourced and trustworthy. Given this powerful presumption, there is a heavy burden to ensure that these works are continuously and closely examined as to the veracity of the information contained therein. When it becomes apparent that a Pulitzer Prize-winning work was based on shoddy, dubious and manifestly false reporting as is the case here the Pulitzer Prize Board must react accordingly, he wrote.

Trump said he hopes corporate media outlets will surrender their Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting but said the organization should take the award back if not.

Without holding the recipients to such a high standard of accountability, the integrity of the Pulitzer Prize namesake stands to be wholly compromised, Trump concluded.

Jordan Davidson is a staff writer at The Federalist. She graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism.

Originally posted here:

Trump: Every Pulitzer For Russia Collusion Hoax Should Be Rescinded - The Federalist

On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, David Azerrad, an assistant professor and research fellow at Hillsdale Colleges Van Andel Graduate School of Government, joins Senior Editor Chris Bedford and Culture Editor Emily Jashinsky to discuss how the post-structuralist left infected American institutions.

Wokeness, CRT, identity politics, I dont know what you want to call it, anti-racism, is the unofficial state religion in America, Azerrad said. It is the central piety of the regime. It rules the American mind. And there are very, very serious consequences in challenging these pieties surrounding primarily race, more specifically, blacks, and secondarily, women.

Azerrad said it would be the most un-American thing to give up on America so conservatives have to be willing to fight for it.

There is a core element of militant lefties who run institutions and that are actively and openly committed to finishing, to destroy the American way of life, Azerrad said. No, its not youre either a friend or an enemy. There are friends, there areenemies, and there are plenty of well-meaningAmericans who dont think about this too much who maybe lean one side, lean to the other and can be persuaded.

Read more here:

Diagnosing The Disease That Infects America's Institutions - The Federalist