A CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSE TO THE 2006 STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS - Part VII

“Preparing our nation to compete in the world is a goal that all of us can share. I urge you to support the American Competitiveness Initiative, and together we will show the world what the American people can achieve. America is a great force for freedom and prosperity. Yet our greatness is not measured in power or luxuries, but by who we are and how we treat one another. So we strive to be a compassionate, decent, hopeful society.”

Which brings us back to making sure our government adheres to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Spying on ordinary citizens without probable cause is not a way to promote freedom and not a very good way to treat each other. It is hard to feel hopeful in the face of so many congressional and governmental scandals, foul-ups and demonstrations of incompetence (i.e. intelligence on WMD in Iraq).

“In recent years, America has become a more hopeful nation. Violent crime rates have fallen to their lowest levels since the 1970s. Welfare cases have dropped by more than half over the past decade. Drug use among youth is down 19 percent since 2001. There are fewer abortions in America than at any point in the last three decades, and the number of children born to teenage mothers has been falling for a dozen years in a row.”

Imagine that. Fewer abortions than any other time in three decades and we didn’t require overturning Roe v. Wade. Perhaps if we funded alternatives to abortion we could reduce the number of abortions even more. Perhaps if we provided a woman with an unwanted pregnancy a choice other than abortion, then we might be able to minimize the use of abortion clinics. Wouldn’t it be great to reduce the number of abortions and still preserve the right to privacy in medical decision-making?

“These gains are evidence of a quiet transformation -- a revolution of conscience, in which a rising generation is finding that a life of personal responsibility is a life of fulfillment. Government has played a role. Wise policies, such as welfare reform and drug education and support for abstinence and adoption have made a difference in the character of our country. And everyone here tonight, Democrat and Republican, has a right to be proud of this record.”

Bovine excrement! This one paragraph is so far out of touch with reality that it is actually quite pathetic. It is a complete and utter disregard for the number of people that are no longer on the welfare rosters and still without resources and means of support. It is a disregard for the homeless population, which still hovers around 3,000,000 despite our efforts to date. It is a disregard of the millions of Americans that suffer because they do not have medical coverage. It is an utter disregard for the evidence that proves “abstinence programs” do not work in term of preventing pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases and the continuing cycle of poverty that occurs from early teen pregnancy.

“Yet many Americans, especially parents, still have deep concerns about the direction of our culture, and the health of our most basic institutions. They're concerned about unethical conduct by public officials, and discouraged by activist courts that try to redefine marriage. They worry about children in our society who need direction and love, and about fellow citizens still displaced by natural disaster, and about suffering caused by treatable diseases.”

And many Americans are concerned about the homophobic, reactionary policies of the ultra-conservatives that see bogeymen anywhere that ultra-conservative Christian values are not the only alternative. Even more Americans worry about a foster care and child welfare system that is all but broken, under-funded and often more harmful than the family of origin. Many Americans are concerned about a system that is purportedly run by “Christians” that do not value compassion, charity and free will… all of which are essential values offered to us by Christ.

“As we look at these challenges, we must never give in to the belief that America is in decline, or that our culture is doomed to unravel. The American people know better than that. We have proven the pessimists wrong before -- and we will do it again.”

But America is in decline. Our standing around the world is losing pace. Our trade deficit is completely unbalanced. Ignoring problems will not make them disappear. Creating commissions and debating issues for years will not resolve our problems. European scholars, political scientists and economists are seeing our decline, but we are not looking at the same criteria. We need to step outside of our own narrow perspectives and take a serious look at our realities. We are losing jobs. While the president claims we have gained jobs, he doesn’t mention the number of jobs we have lost due to displacement or outsourcing. He also doesn’t mention the fact that the national unemployment figures do not count those that have left the rolls of unemployment and still do not have jobs. He doesn’t mention the profound poverty and lack of jobs in many rural areas of our nation. He doesn’t mention that big business is pushing more and more of the smaller businesses out, closing family-run farms and monopolizing the marketplace. It is not pessimism to take a realistic look at what is actually in front of our faces. But it is delusion and denial not to take a realistic look at the problems that confront us and do nothing about them/

“A hopeful society depends on courts that deliver equal justice under the law. The Supreme Court now has two superb new members -- new members on its bench: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito. I thank the Senate for confirming both of them. I will continue to nominate men and women who understand that judges must be servants of the law, and not legislate from the bench.”

Of the three recent nominees, only one has any real claim to judicial scholarship or temperament, but even Chief Justice Roberts is a conservative version of an activist jurist. Just because a court nominee agrees with the conservative view of the world doesn’t mean that he/she is not prone to being an activist. In the view of many Americans the activist nature of the conservative court was proven in Gore v. Bush that afforded the election to George W, Bush. That was activism based solely on conservative ideology and partisan politics.

“A hopeful society has institutions of science and medicine that do not cut ethical corners, and that recognize the matchless value of every life. Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses of medical research: human cloning in all its forms, creating or implanting embryos for experiments, creating human-animal hybrids, and buying, selling, or patenting human embryos. Human life is a gift from our Creator -- and that gift should never be discarded, devalued or put up for sale.”

Given the scandals in congress (most involving the Republican Party), the issues involving Scooter Libby and Karl Rove, the illegal wiretapping an surveillance programs, the failure to equip our troops with proper armor, the violation of treaties and Constitution to get us into a war in Iraq, etc., should Mr. Bush be talking about ethics?

But we can agree that cloning and cross-species hybrids are way out of the ethical spectrum. And even though I am Christian, I find the religious reference in terms of governmental policy unconstitutional and inappropriate. But has there been any human cloning in the US? How about cross-species hybrids? There is a legal, constitutional basis for opposing cloning and hybrid cross breeding. Further, there are scientific reasons that create a compelling interest without competing personal interests and guaranteed rights.

However, what the president terms “experiments” may have an alternative understanding by many Americans. If he is talking about stem cell research, then he is talking about limiting medicine and competitive technology that other countries are already supporting. He is addressing a science that may not cross the line that determines a compelling interest. Indeed, under historical and legal precedent, the restriction on harvesting stem cells from embryos developed outside of a womb may violate basic property rights. At least it can be argued from that perspective if we remove the religious basis for the arguments against it. Let us be clear on this issue: our government is prohibited from using religious criteria for creating and/or implementing law. But there is a religious theme in the approach to these issues that doesn’t mesh with freedom, free choice, civil liberties and privacy rights.

As a Christian I believe abortion is wrong. That is my personal choice. My wife and my family physician support that choice. But I also believe it is against Christian doctrine for me to judge others and to dictate the beliefs and conduct of others where there are alternative possibilities and my personal rights are not directly infringed upon. I believe in personal responsibility for the decisions we make. I believe that the government has ABSOLUTELY no business making personal decisions for anyone. There is strong legal precedent to allow a person to determine medical decision. Harvesting stem cells from an embryo or aborting a fetus is a medical decision. While it is also a moral decision, my church tells me that personal conscience matters are between my God and me.

We can guarantee that if every male member of congress were ordered by the government to get a vasectomy there would be outrage. We can also guarantee that if every member of congress were forced to forgo the use of contraception there would be outrage. If every member of congress were ordered to adopt a particular religious doctrine, or even an agnostic doctrine, or an atheist doctrine, there would be a reaction like none seen since the Revolution. The battle against Roe v. Wade is an unprincipled attempt to force religious beliefs regarding decisions of conscience upon the entire country. It is the perfect example of the tyranny of the majority—the majority being determined by an unbalanced political process.

It’s high time we accept the realities we face and draw some reasonable lines of demarcation between free will (freedom) and the compelling interest of the state, or the tyranny of the ultra-conservative Christian Right. Roe v. Wade provided a compromise that, absent of an entrenched religious ideology, fulfills reason and constitutional principle. There is no compelling interest of the state that should trump the right of a person to make personal medical decisions. Imposing the will of others upon a person is contrary to the doctrine of free will and free agency that is a foundation of Christianity. Imposing the religious will of a politically powerful group upon the individual is unconstitutional. Imposing a religious doctrine on the whole nation is unconstitutional and un-American.